Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Gwen Gale (talk | contribs)
47,788 edits
Line 1,307: Line 1,307:
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Oefelein&diff=115635097&oldid=115599525 20:27, 16 March 2007]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Oefelein&diff=115635097&oldid=115599525 20:27, 16 March 2007]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Oefelein&diff=115691233&oldid=115682940 01:17, 17 March 2007]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Oefelein&diff=115691233&oldid=115682940 01:17, 17 March 2007]

This new user seems rather familiar with this page. Meanwhile I support WP policy and the 3rr rule. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] 19:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


==Sample violation report to copy==
==Sample violation report to copy==

Revision as of 19:45, 17 March 2007

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

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:Corpus christi band reported by User:Thisisbossi (Result: No block)

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

    Comments
    Repeated addition of a non-notable band. Attempted to discuss on user's talk page as well as relevant article, which is currently nominated for speedy deletion (and was already speedily deleted at least once, but the user recreated it). The band's article violated WP:NOR, WP:COI, and WP:Notability. See also: Corpus Christi Band and Talk:Corpus Christi Band. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:3RR violation requires 4 reverts per 24 hours, not 3 reverts. No block. Crum375 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, my mistake, then. A 4th will likely be on the way -- I will add it here if it indeed occurs. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 01:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PhJ reported by User:Taalo (Result:24 hours)

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

    Comments
    This fellow feels his way is the right way (of course), and the other way is vandalism'. Starting a revert war all over the place on this topic. Taalo 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    24 hours. John Reaves (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:64.16.152.145 reported by User:Ancjr (Result:no vio)

    Three-revert rule violation on Squidbillies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.16.152.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    User has consistently reverted this line with no explanation for thier actions. Ancjr 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears to me that the third and fourth reverts listed are really one revert done in two edits, so no violation (unless there are more diffs to be added). Heimstern Läufer 20:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:R9tgokunks step accross the line (result: 48 h)

    From december 27th 2006  : we have 12 reversions on the article Alsace :

    and he does not want to have a serious talk on his talk page (section Vandalism on the article Alsace)... I'm a bit fed up of his behavior. Can you do something? Sincerily user:Paris75000 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is for reporting WP:3RR violations - not for solving content disputes. Please read WP:3RR, look at the sample report at the bottom of this page, and compare to reports filed elsewhere on this page. If you believe you observed a 3RR violation and want action, you need to follow the report submission format. No block. Crum375 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there were four reverts on 10 March and one more today. Easy enough to spot. Blocked for 48 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thx, bye user:Paris75000 00:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CovenantD reported by User:Mardavich (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on 300 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CovenantD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    There are more reverts, minor or major, I only listed four of them. CovenantD has been basically WP:Owning 300 (film) by undoing other people's edits repeatedly, all related to content dispute. I warned him twice about 3RR, but he chose to ignore it. [1] [2] --Mardavich 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User's third 3RR violation, 24h. No, you weren't reverting simple vandalism. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TharkunColl reported by User:Netscott (Result:31 hours)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [3] (note the image of Muhammad at the top).

    Comments: This editor has been pointedly insisting that an image of Muhammad appear at the top of the article about him. I say this because this editor has already been blocked by User:El C for incivility on Talk:Muhammad as well as by User:Blnguyen. In line with his 3RR vio he continues with his incivility: "As a matter of fact, I don't give a shit about Muhammad" 16:29, 11 March 2007. Additionally, this user has been warned with the possibility of a block by User:Grenavitar for utilizing the term "sbuh" which means "shit be upon him". I have reverted three times myself in view of the long ongoing mediation about this and what the consensus about displaying images has thus far been. (→Netscott) 18:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:C.m.jones reported by User:Netscott (Result: 12h)

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

    Comment: Despite an unmistakeable consensus against them this user has been repeatedly adding tags. This user has been previously involved with an edit war that saw the article get protected. It would be helpful for some preventative measures to cease these out of consensus edits. (→Netscott) 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree, support. I was just coming here to list this and saw Scott got it first... - Denny 19:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    12h. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ideogram reported by User:Certified.Gangsta (Result:Warning)

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

    Comment: This editor is not only reverting warring furiously with me but also stalking my contributions and revert everything I edited. This seems out of personal vendetta rather than good faith in the project. He violated almost every single rules you could violate on wikipedia.--Certified.Gangsta 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-reverted. Note that I only revert the edits which are against consensus, which in this case happens to be all of them. --Ideogram 22:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    They've been there for almost a year before you unilaterally remove important info.--Certified.Gangsta 22:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You want your way, discuss and get consensus. --Ideogram 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is about content factuality and NPOV. It's not a democracy. Please stop wikilawyering.--Certified.Gangsta 22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Warning issued to Ideogram. Due to self-revert, no 3RR violation, but skating close to thin ice. —210physicq (c) 22:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Argol910 reported by User:Jhamez84 (Result:24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Royton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Argol910 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    * 4th revert: 21:49, 11 March 2007

    Comments: A knightmare of a user to work with. This user is a chronic vandal, censor, bully and sockpuppetier. Want evidence? See a whole years worth of material!

    A self-styled adminstrator [8], this account is certainly a sockpuppet of User:Algol126 (blocked indefinately), and is being used simply to circumvent a semi-protection status on Royton which was hoped to stop repeated bad faith edits.

    Any time a user gives him a warning in this instance, he cuts it and pastes it on another user's talk page. Jhamez84 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The fourth revert just links to his talk page, so there is only 3 of the 4 needed reversions as of now. John Reaves (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    24 hours. John Reaves (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wgungfu reported by User:Nandesuka (Result: 8 hrs)

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


    Comments
    User:Wgungfu feels very strongly that all videogame related articles are required to have Mobygames links; strongly enough to try to characterize the good-faith removal of such links as vandalism. Nandesuka 01:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The user doesn't appear to have been warned. Can a diff be provided that shows the warning? John Reaves (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not need warning, user warned Nandesuka, which demonstrates cognizance of the policy. -- Avi 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    8 hours First offense. -- Avi 01:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops, I just blocked for 24, feel free to reduce. John Reaves (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, thanks. Sorry about the edit conflicts :) -- Avi 02:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arcayne reported by User:Mardavich (Result:Warning)

    Three-revert rule violation on 300 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    There are several more reverts that I didn't list. This is another case of WP:Owning at 300 (film) by repeatedly undoing/removing other people's edits, all related to content dispute. I warned User:Arcayne, who has been blocked for 3RR before, twice about WP:3RR [9] and what is exempt, and what is not exempt [10], but he chose to ignore my warnings and remove them from his talk page as "foolish commentary" which itself is a personal attack against me. [11] --Mardavich 02:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mardavich did in fact suggest that my edits were either vandalism or violations of 3RR or both. As noted from the diffs in the supposed violations, what was removed was unsourced OR, or synthesis OR. The last instance was a removal of a section to the Discussion page for resolution, as there were concerns it wasn't related to the article, and was in fact inflammatory. As far as I know it is still in the Discussion page, being debated.
    User:Mardavich has repeatedly threatened other established users (User:ThuranX and User:Erikster) with 3RR complaints.Arcayne 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this is a violation of the 3RR. This is an editor removing Original Research and cleaning up an article. There are all separate edits. I've noticed that the reporting editor has been handing out "warnings" to other editors with no cause or explaination. He even handed one to one editor that has made maybe a handful of edits to the article in question in about a week (he's been on a wikibreak).  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, the edits while formally violate the 3RR were unopposed by other editors and can be seen as one large revert doing in steps. I have unblocked him Alex Bakharev 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor is using the 3RR as an intimidation tactic. Despite having made only a couple edits to the page in three days, he came at me with it. He's using it to push a pro-iranian/persian agenda. he is upset by any removal of content which disparages the movies portrayal of the Persian amries of Xerxes. Further, it's my understanding that 3RR applies to a SINGLE content dispute, NOT to an article as a whole. If it applied to articles as a whole, any three edits which correct information, reword for neutrality, and so on could be counted to the 3RR. It specifically applies to arguments about whether sentence X or Paragraph Y should be in, complete with deletions anreinsertions over and over. TO argue a set of content in one section, resolve it and move on isn't covered by 3RR. Mardavich needs to be made aware of the problems with his interpretation of 3RR, and the fact that he tells editors that any edit they make puts them in danger of violating 3RR can and has been seen as intimidation. I tried to explain it to him, but he weaselled around it using AGF, which is tough to do when confronted with 'you're gonna break 3RR and i'm gonna get you when you do', especially since it's accord to his overly restrictive interpretation of 3RR. Thank you. (Also posted to AB's usertalk, as he's the admin resolving.) ThuranX 20:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Oakshade reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result: 8h)

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


    Comments
    User is aware of 3RR as seen in this post [12] a couple of days before, when him and AMIB were warring before. Hbdragon88 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8h William M. Connolley 09:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:A Man In Black reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result:3 hours)

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


    Comments

    Blocked for 72 hours based on past violations and apparent unwillingness to stop edit warring. John Reaves (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I was unblocked, as I tried to self-rv my own third revert, having reconsidered, and the fourth "revert" is an unrelated, uncontested edit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the heading to three hours as AMIB was unblocked. I hope that's okay. Hbdragon88 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Michaelbusch reported by User:Martinphi (Result: 18h)

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

    Also:


    Comments
    I have never before reported someone for 3RR. But I'm doing it now because he also reverted my insertion of citation requests. Perhaps I am mistaken, as these are not all reverts to the exact same thing.
    The fourth "revert" is not a revert, just adding more stuff in . Hbdragon88 05:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but #1, #2, #3, and #5 are enough to earn an 18 hour block. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stifle (talk • contribs) 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Sorry this is too late to make a difference for Michaelbusch, but I've filed a sockpuppet case against Martin here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi - this article is one of the ones in question and I suspect he may have used the sock to evade 3RR enforcement. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Trusteggs reported by User:Hornplease (Result: 12h)

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


    Comments
    Possible sock of banned user, reported to RFCU independently by another editor.

    User:71.57.90.96 reported by User:davkal (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Electronic Voice Phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.57.90.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    4 reverts to the same section (MacRae in EVP article). User is probably sock-puppet of User:ScienceApologist

    User:DrParkes reported by User:Nate1481 (Result: )

    Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DrParkes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    and subsequently with refusal to discus it on talk.

    If you can't be bothered to post details of the four reverts in the template provided, I can't be bothered to go and block anyone. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry wasn't sure off the format & in a bit of a rush. --Nate 09:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has now been blocked, I think due to another report, but a similar editor user:kentkent has taken up where he left off on two other pages (see report bellow) and may be a sock puppet. --Nate 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KingRaptor reported by User:Skyemoor (Result: Warning)

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


    Comments

    Starting to post to talk page, but continues to revert, with 4 reverts in a 24 hr period.

    User appears relatively new and hasn't been warned, so while there are four reverts I'm going to issue just a warning on this occasion. Stifle (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Illwauk reported by User:Miaers (Result: No violation)

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

    Comments:

    The user has been repeatedly deleting the image I uploaded for the cityscape section in Milwaukee article. Miaers 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that User:Miaers has been substituting the image in question for another by User:Illwauk which Maiers mocks as "amateur" and "obnoxious". The two of them have been dueling reverts in this article, bouncing from section to section (mostly to meet Miaers' objections). He (Miaers) has more or less overtly declared that he will not tolerate the presence of the other photo anywhere in the Milwaukee article, substituting another he finds less esthetically offensive. --Orange Mike 18:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Orangemike, Illwauk replaced a photo in the Economy section with a photo of his. It was opposed by several editors in the talk page. I'm adding a photo to another section in the article. But he continues to replace the photo with his one. Miaers 18:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For a violation to exist there must be in excess of three reverts. This is not a violation. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also notice that Miaers actually had Four Reverts during this same time period. Here are the diffs: First, Second, Third, and Fourth. Cheers, PaddyM 21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PaddyM, I placed the photo in the cityscape section first. I'll restore it one more time. Miaers 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Miaers reported by User:PaddyM (Result: 24 hrs)

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


    Comments
    Miaers engages in personal attacks and believes that since he simply uploaded a photo that it must be used in the article. PaddyM 21:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PaddyM, nobody ever says there is anything wrong about the photo I added with good intention, and I didn't personally attacked anyone. Miaers 21:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:72.88.162.57 reported by User:Beit_Or (Result: 24 hrs; IP range of two ArbCom banned editors)

    Three-revert rule violation on Vlaams_Belang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 72.88.162.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    The anon is a long-term problem. They have been edit warring for a long time on several articles (see contributions). Beit Or 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do note, that the 72.88.xxxxx range is that of two editors who have been banned by the arbitration committee, who both have already proclaimed that they will not abide by this ban. In any case, any reverts from these IPs are 3RR exempt. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aivazovsky reported by User:AdilBaguirov (24 hrs)

    User Aivazovsky has violated the ArbCom notice [16] of only one (1) revert per day per article on the Nakhichevan page [17] Also, in an additional violation of ArbCom, user Aivazovsky did not discuss his changes in the Talk page.

    • 1st revert on 20:13, March 12, 2007

    [18]

    • 2nd revert on 22:04, March 12, 2007

    [19]

    • Blocked User:Aivazovsky for 24 hours for 1RR + Talk violation per ArbCom injunction. Crum375 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unblocked - user reverted self. Crum375 23:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Morphi reported by User:Jerrypp772000 (Result: 24 hrs)

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

    3RR warning: [21]

    Note on User talk:Morphi he admits to being engaged in WP:POINT. --Ideogram 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments


    User:Vijaynte reported by User:Sfacets (Result: No violation)

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

    Comment user, by own admission is planning to revert (at least) 3 times a day [26] - and doesn't provide arguments for reverting, dispite continued requests. The user has been previously blocked for the same reason (3RR violation) in the past. Sfacets 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can you please follow the sample report format at the bottom of this page? You have no 'version reverted to', no diff times, and the times of your diffs appear to span more than 24 hours. You also place your report in the middle of an existing one. Please take care in filing reports. No violation. Crum375 01:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vartanm reported by User:Atabek (Result:No action )

    User Vartanm has violated the ArbCom notice [27] of only one (1) revert per 24 hours per article on the Nagorno-Karabakh page [28]. Although User:Artaxiad, just recently given a chance after the blockage due to a harassment case, is now reverting the ArbCom page to remove the evidence, User:Vartanm is in ArbCom, he has posted a statement [29] and evidence in the case [30] defending himself and being charged with edit warring by several other contributors in ArbCom case:

    • 1st revert on 20:29, 12 March 2007

    [31]

    • 2nd revert on 04:11, 13 March 2007

    [32]

    Comment - Wrong, he was never warned, anyone can participate in this, theres tons of admins involved they have reverted more than one time this is a false report you just added his name this is how you try to get innocent users blocked. Artaxiad 04:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Vartanm clearly knew about being a party to ArbCom case, since he posted statements in his defense at ArbCom and was charged with edit warring by several users. 06:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

    You really need to understand what you are doing before you go on with this, making a false report and he made a statement but he is not involved, tons of users have made statements and they do not get 1R injunction that includes Vartanm, you need to know this before you start getting others in trouble. Artaxiad 04:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - this is why you post DIFFs. Easier for admins to read. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 06:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Vartanm is part of ArbCom case and knows very well he is not supposed to engage in revert wars and disruptive edits, and make more than one revert per 24h per article. He violated it willingly and knowingly. Here are the diffs:

    • First revert: 20:29, March 12, 2007, [33]
    • Second revert: 04:11, March 13, 2007, [34]

    --AdilBaguirov 06:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally you could've reported him to ArbCom Enforcement for failing to comply with the temporary injunction of each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 06:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The user was not named as a pary of the arbcom case unless added by Atabek himself [35]. I do not think it is appropriate Alex Bakharev 06:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vartanm has become a very active member of the Armenian editors' team, suddenly appearing and becoming a convenient revert machine. Hence his inclusion in the Armenian-Azerbaijani ArbCom is fully justified, especially since much less active Azerbaijani members, such as Ulvi were also included for some reason (whilst several other Armenian editors, who all suddenly became active, are not listed). Meanwhile, I agree that Vartanm can be reported for failing to comply on other counts as well. --AdilBaguirov 06:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bakharev, Vartanm is in ArbCom case with statements presented above. If the user was not part of ArbCom, why does he have a statement in defense of himself and one of the sides in the conflict? Is anyone going to take action, or this should go into ArbCom Enforcement? Please, administrators, give your final decision, so that we may proceed with the case. Thanks. Atabek 06:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He was not initially named to the ArbCom case, and because this case has an injunction on it, the procedural thing is that Vartanm theroetically isn't under the injunction unless being named as a party by the ArbCom. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 07:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My name was just added to the arbitration list. The 1RR rule did not imply to me before. Vartanm 04:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note Vartanm has been added as a party and has been informed of the injunction. No retroactive action will be taken but he is under the injunction going forward. Thatcher131 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:192.223.140.62 reported by User:KarlBunker (Result:Incomplete)

    192.223.140.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Deliberately disruptive editor, repeatedly making the same edit against consensus and refusing to discuss. Has been blocked for this twice before. The story is in the history

    If you can't be bothered to properly submit a report, then no one is going to take any action. John Reaves (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean like this "no one"? Technically speaking, this is a call for intervention against a disruptive editor rather than a true 3RR case, but I looked for a long time and couldn't find the place for that. If someone could point me to a better place to report this sort of thing, I'll use that the next time this editor does his thing. KarlBunker 10:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.17.121.71 reported by User:Ancjr (Result: 48 Hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Squidbillies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 76.17.121.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    Seems to be the same user, or a sock puppet of 64.16.152.145 which was reported yesterday WP:AN3#User:64.16.152.145_reported_by_User:Ancjr_.28Result:no_vio.29.
    • 48 hour ban, multiple violations, including profanity in articles.Rlevse 02:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:R9tgokunks reported by User:Tulkolahten (Result:4 days)

    Three-revert rule violation on Brno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). R9tgokunks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    This user continuously edit wars. See this:

    [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] And many others, what to do please ? Also he was blocked previously three times [43]. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 4 days for continuous edit warring and for doing so after just coming off another block for the same thing. John Reaves (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both editors have participated extensively in edit warring. Tulkolahten has searched for articles containing "Brünn" and removed it. He did that almost with the speed and indifference of a bot (in one minute he managed four different articles at one point). R9tgokunks has followed this track of deletions and reverted these edits. It would be of no use to start a conversation on the talk pages of about 30 articles and Tulkolahten should have started a discussion first. In addition to that, in his name-deleting, Tulkolahten wrongly marked many such edits as "minor", accused R9tgokunks of renaming Czech cities in his AN/I report (when in reality it was him who changed the naming), labelling R9tgokunks's reverts of them as vandalism.
    Granted, R9tgokunks continued to revert after his block and that shouldn't be supported, but of his edits in the past 24 hours, there are many normal edits among them (if I counted correctly, his reverts are in the slight majority), whereas every edit in the article space of Tulkohlaten in the past 24h is a revert (34 succeeding reverts). Regarding edit warring, Tulkohlaten was just as guilty as him. Regarding this 3RR, both have reverted for three times in the article concerned. But Tulkohlaten, who started to revert, misleadingly reported Rotgokunks' first edit as revert, so it was no 3RR violation. I personally think 24h for each user would be suitable. Sciurinæ 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Parishan reported by User:Artaxiad (Result: no vio)

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

    • clear arbcom violation, 24 hour block per ruling. Rlevse 02:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Removed block upon receiving more details on case. No arbcom vio, user was in middle of making his talk entry.Rlevse 10:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Trorov reported by User:Snickerdo (Result:48 hrs)

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

    • Previous versions reverted to:

    [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] etc etc

    Comments
    I posted a notification to his :talk page as outlined here, and he immidiately went an re-posted it to my page (yes, I may have violated the 3RR rule by one edit, it's difficult to keep track, though I have not been involved in the previous edit wars). Other users have reverted his work and he reverts them back. Also invited him to discuss the issue on the :talk page but he continues to revert, and he doesn't provide any factual information to back his claims. Overall, a real mess that I no longer want to be involved in. Please forgive me if my template is not correct, I have not been involved in this before.
    • block 48hrs on Trorov, continual edit warring.Rlevse 02:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Grandia01 reported by User:Proabivouac (Result: Warning)

    Three-revert rule violation on Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grandia01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    User:Grandia01 has been repeating this tendentious edit since at least 6 October 2006,[57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72], has been warned on a number of occasions,[73], [74], [75], and has generally refused to engage in discusson. Additionally, he has been blanking depictions of Muhammad from the transclusion page, against consensus, where consensus has held this to constitute disruption.[76], [77]Proabivouac 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking his talk page history, however, shows he never had a warning. -- Avi 07:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given warning. If he reverts again… -- Avi 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you actually read what I wrote above? "...has been warned on a number of occasions"[78], [79], [80]. In fact, I warned him immediately before the fourth revert shown above. He's been doing this since October 2006.
    I can't believe I spent half an hour getting these diffs together. What a waste of time.Proabivouac 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but those are not 3RR warnings, but regular vandalism warnings. That's why part of the template says

    Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    -- Avi 07:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    this is a warning and this is not a new user. Arrow740 07:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That diff, which was presented in the origingal report, plainly shows that the responding admin had not read the evidence when he wrote, "...he never had a warning."Proabivouac 07:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Davkal reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Comments

    --Milo H Minderbinder 13:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A followup on this, a checkuser shows that Davkal used a sockpuppet to evade this block and make an additional revert. Checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davkal Sixth revert by sockpuppet: 20:48, 14 March 2007 --Minderbinder 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't a sock-puppet it was a friend.Davkal 15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So it may be potential meatpuppetry instead of sockpuppetry. Either way, an admin should take a look. --Minderbinder 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A meat puppet is someone who does your bidding. Baaderthanmeinhof does his own bidding. Davkal 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Billy Ego reported by User:MarkThomas (Result: No violation)

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


    Comments
    User is ignoring efforts to discuss on a range of Nazi and Socialist related subjects and repeatedly reverts and edit wars. MarkThomas 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look carefully. This was not straight out reverts but me adding more detailed information on the source cited. MarkThomas was claiming that the Sunday Express didn't exist in 1938. But the Sunday Express was launched on Dec 19 1918. So he was deleting the quote from Hitler in that newspaper. This was not a case of me simply reverting back information, but responding to MarkThomas's disruptive removal of information that was cited, by adding more information so he would stop. I had to make it clear that the Sunday Express did indeed exist when Hitler was quoted from it. Billy Ego 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Sunday Express issue was just a passing remark, the basic fact is that Billy Ego did 4 continuous reverts within 24 hours. MarkThomas 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It wasn't a "passing remark." It was your whole reason for removing the information, as you said so in your summary [81] So now that I've proved that the Sunday Express did indeed exist at that time and you realize now that you were wrong, you wtill want to try to penalize me? That's real ethical on your part. Are you more interested in making sure information is correct or winning a battle? Billy Ego 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Billy Ego is misrepresenting. His edits were attempted to be reverted by myself and one other editor on the grounds that (a) they are out of context with the introduction (b) they appear to be uncheckable and (c) they are not supported by other sources of information. MarkThomas 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation, I see only one initial edit, and three reverts to it. However, all parties are cautioned to discuss rather than engage in an edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On this basis, if other editors revert him, would he be free to continue to put his edit back multiple times without sanction? MarkThomas 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not, it is unacceptable to revert more than three times except under some very limited circumstances, and this is not one of those exceptions. However, the case here is: The first "revert" on the list is actually just an edit the user made (unless the edit was made at some point in the past, but if that did happen, whoever made the report didn't bother to say so.) An edit is not a revert. The user then reverted to that same edit three times, but stopped at three. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TharkunColl reported by User:Lurker (Result: Page protected)

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



    Comments

    No, I haven't. The first two on that list could have been made with a single edit, and in any case are nothing to do with the second two on the list which refer to a totally different part of the article. TharkunColl 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've never reported 3RR before, so may be wrong. But I believe that reverts do not need to be conected, you just need to remove others' content 4 times in 24 hrs. Lurker oi! 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on past experience with him, I wouldn't over-react by assuming you are wrong when considering TharkunColl's editing behaviour, he frequently deliberately varies each edit slightly to try to game the system and avoid 3RR disciplining, something he sadly has gotten away with previously, although he is now up to 31 hours on his last block. MarkThomas 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't you have a look at them then? The second two are totally unconnected with the first two. And the first two are successive edits I made without reverting anybody. If you want proof, go and look at the edit history of the page. There were no edits at all between my edit of 16:00 and my edit of 16:19. It was not a reversion of any sort. TharkunColl 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In his defense, TharkunColl's edits in the first two diffs are not reverts. They are simply edits. The rule doesn't say "you can't make more than 3 edits to an article in one day." He still may have violated the 3RR with other edits to the article, however. Just look at the article's history or TharkunColl's edit history just to make sure. ~ UBeR 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No specific violation here, the first two were done without anyone else's edits intervening and are the same as a single edit. However, after a look at the page's history, I've protected it due to ongoing edit wars. Please work out the disputes and come to some type of agreement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    However the edit war is going, I think I misunderstood the rules and was wrong to report a 3RR violation. I've sent TUC an apology, and would like to apologise for wasting the time of whatever admin(s) had to check this out. In the future, I'll make sure i understand the rules fully before posting violations. Lurker oi! 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AnonMoos reported by User:Halaqah (Result: Only 3 diffs listed - no violation at current)

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



    Comments

    This disruptive editor adds original research and material not given in the citations provided, this has been going on for months, the article however was left with a dispute tag, which was removed by a editor. because the tag "not in citation" given was said to be enought. I made some edits to removed the reason why the tag was placed there, and the disruptive editor returned and reverted it back to the problem version. I then put it back to the original state with the dispute tag, he reverted again. i replaced the dispute notice, he reverted again. Removing a dispute tag is vandalism, because it is clear there is a dispute yet he is vandalising the tag. The only reason the other editor removed the tag was because the version they had was balanced and have "not in citation" given. But he has removed all tags and restored it to the fully disputed version.notice how the 3 ref do not say what he claims they say and he has provided NO reference for any of the content added.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Halaqah, you need FOUR reverts in 24 hours to violate, not three. As of now, there is no violation, unless you can bring a fourth. -- Avi 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didnt know that, if you revert three times. My God Avi is that you? small world. C u around.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    wa `Alaykum As-Salām, Halaqah. Yes, it's me. . -- Avi 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Halaqah for some reason is very insistent that the Arabic word Zanj زنج doesn't mean what all Arabic dictionaries say that it means, and he resorts to extreme bizarre contortions (such as trying to discredit Hans Wehr as an agent of colonialist imperialism, and telling people that a dictionary doesn't in fact say what they're reading when they holding the relevant entry directly in front of their eyes). User:Halaqah has added a dispute tag twice before to article Zanj, and both times I did nothing about the tag and let events play out and fully take their slow course -- which was that both times the dispute tag was removed by someone else (not me) who saw no merit in User:Halaqah's arguments (in fact, no one who has come along on the article page Zanj or the talk page Talk:Zanj has ever seen any merit in User:Halaqah's arguments on this matter). I don't intend to violate Wikipedia's reversion policies, but adding a dispute template a third time around solely because User:Halaqah insists that the Arabic word Zanj زنج doesn't mean what all Arabic dictionaries say that it means is not a productive way to improve the article, and I'm not going to let it happen. Of course, now User:Halaqah has taken to stalking me (reverting my edits on Bilad al-Sham to intimidate and harass me), and that doesn't excessively impress me either. AnonMoos 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you gentlemen need WP:DR, not WP:3RR. -- Avi 02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RichardBennett reported by User:Wolfkeeper (Result: 24 hours)

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


    Comments

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Michael Glass reported by User:Nandesuka (Result: 8 hours)

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


    Comments
    Experienced editor is repeatedly to wedge soapbox material into the Circumcision article. Nandesuka 22:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry (only the first was an oldid). Fixed now. Nandesuka 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User's first violation, 8 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ed g2s reported by User:Armando12 (Result:No violation)

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


    Comments
    This user has been deleting the album cover images from the article. This is very disruptive. The use of album covers on articles don't violate any policy, and we can prove it with featured articles like Nirvana (band) and Nightwish, that also use album cover images. Armando.Otalk • Ev 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Our Fair Use policy is frequencly violated - that you've found two other pages proves nothing. Two wrongs don't make a right. Rather than try to justify the use of the images (which is required before using them) the user labelled my edits as vandalism. This is not a content dispute. ed g2s • talk 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also only the last two diffs are acutal reverts - the first two diffs are just the original edit. ed g2s • talk 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is indeed the case; no edit was made between the first two edits listed above. Also, please don't edit-war unfree images back into articles; if there are concerns about copyright, the burden to establish consensus that we should republish the work are on the editors wanting to include it. Note also that removing potential copyright infringement is an exemption to the 3RR. Jkelly 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the use of fair-use images would be a "potential copyright infringement", Wikipedia would be a potential copyright infringement. Almost all the article (with images) use fair-use images. Examples, anime, music, movies, science, technology, art (and a lot or more topics) article use fair-use images, because free-use image don't exist for most of the article from this topics. Anime...does it exist a free-use image of a cover of an OVA? Music...Does it exist a free-image of a copyrighted logo or album cover? Tech...Does it exist a free-use image of de Microsoft logo, or a Windows XP screenshoot, no! Armando.Otalk • Ev 01:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia -Mysekurity 02:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:License2Kill and User:MJukmix reported by User:Mysekurity (Result: No violation)

    Three-revert rule violation on Tupac Shakur discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). License2Kill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MJukmix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    By License2Kill:

    By MJukmix:

    Comments
    I am not personally involved with this particular 3RR, but I am involved in an RfC on Tupac Shakur with L2K. To avoid a conflict of interest, I am seeking assistance here. -Mysekurity 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whups! my fault! -Mysekurity 03:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    Reverts were not made within a 24-hour period. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, but it's still edit warring. From WP:3RR: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." This behavior is clearly disruptive, and though I could block them myself for edit warring (and logging out to bypass 3RR), I decided to take it here. The talk page has not been utilized to discuss the change being made, and it seems L2K has shown this type of behavior in the past. -Mysekurity 05:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    This is true, or they may not be. In this case, the edit war doesn't look severe enough to block as yet. If they keep the edit war up without going over 3RR, request the page be protected or report it to WP:AN/I. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Praveen pillay reported by User:Sarvagnya (Result:No action)

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




    Comments:

    • In the first revert, which is a partial revert he retains one external link (the tamilnation.org link). It is a partial revert so I have given the diff.
    • In the second and third reverts, he continues to fight for the same external link(the tamilnation.org one) which had been removed.
    • In the fourth revert, he reverts the {{OR}} and {{disputed}} tags that had been placed on the article and also {{verify}} tags placed on few references. Sarvagnya 08:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This happened almost two days ago and the page is now protected due to your edit warring so there is no need for a block. John Reaves (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a time limit within which we have to report? And I had reported this almost 36 hrs ago anyway. In any case, you agree that there was a violation. Right? Sarvagnya 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bov / User:67.180.110.244 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:10 days)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template:911ct (edit | [[Talk:Template:911ct|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 67.180.110.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) :

    All reverts are to the same version, which is intermediate between the two versions reverted to above, so they all qualify as partial reversions of my edit above.


    Comments
    See this diff from User:Bov for an admission that he frequently fails to log in, and check the history of this IP to see that it frequently makes the same edits as User:Bov. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    10 days each. John Reaves (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kentkent reported by User:Nate1481 (Result:No action)

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

    Comments

    • Last two are not strict reverts but continue the patten of disruptive editing
    • May also be a sockpuppet of the banned user:DrParkes
    New user who wasn't warned until after/at the same time of the fifth revert. No action taken. John Reaves (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IAF reported by User:Vassyana (Result: 24 hrs)

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

    Comments


    User:Jonawiki reported by User:Roguegeek (Result:no vio)

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

    Comments
    The problem with this user goes beyond the constant reverting that reintroduces unverified information, but enforcement of the 3RR is probably the most immediate way of dealing with this. Simply looking at the talk and article history of the SWG article will confirm the lake of civility from the user. Due to the person being a new user, myself and numerous other editors have taken a fair amount of time trying to explain several policies, but we still get constant reverts. We will probably need to get an admin involved to resolve these issues, but for now, we'll just report the reverting. Roguegeek (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sukecchi reported by User:Funpika (Result: Warning)

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

    Comments

    User:Sukecchi has edited Wikipedia for a long time (Earliest contribution 1/1/06) and should know about WP:3RR by now. Funpika 22:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page is protected, no need for a block right now, user warned. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Magonaritus reported by User:Roguegeek (Result:24h)

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

    Comments
    New editor seems upset we are removing invalid rumors with no source information. Have worked with trying to explain policies, but it has not helped. Editor has also been warned several times on being uncivil also. Roguegeek (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Roguegeek reported by User:Magonaritus (Result: 24 hours)

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


    Comments

    Block quote

    Still an edit war over content, still violated 3RR, 24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:A Man In Black reported by User:DHowell (Result:)

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

    Comments: This is an admin, who should know better, but seems to believe he is exempt from one policy because he is attempting to enforce another. His interpretation of fair use policy is not consensus and has repeatedly been disputed. See, e.g. Wikipedia:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries.

    This is copyvio content, not a content dispute. DHowell doesn't feel that it's copyvio, but hasn't yet had any success (after many months) making any impact on policy. In the meantime, policy hasn't changed, and I've had to clean up copyvio non-free images. It's probably my mistake for not just deleting them on sight, but instead leaving them orphaned for people to write encyclopedic commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with AMIB's position -- this is a bad-faith report that should be disregarded. I've witness reporting user Dhowell attempt to misrepresent policy to further his position, and obviously making inappropriate noticeboard complaints. /Blaxthos 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    207.127.241.2 reported by User:Blaxthos (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.127.241.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments

    From User talk:207.127.241.2:

    This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP may result in an immediate block without further warning.

    24 hours for violating not only WP:3RR but also WP:BLP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Behnam reported by User:Agha Nader (Result: No action)

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


    Comments: Although the reverts are not all about one piece of material, they still are a breach of the 3RR. [WP:3RR]] says "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Also user Mehrshad123 may also have broken the rule on that page.

    Response - The first "revert" was not a revert, but rather the first time I introduced the wording. Hence, I did not 'undo' the actions of another editor. The Behnam 00:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Furthermore, the second "revert" also is not an 'undoing' either, but a novel edit. The Behnam 00:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The first edit undid the actions of another editor. And is thus a revert. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor" Agha Nader 00:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
    I didn't 'undo' anything, I simply changed the page. The wording was completely new; if I had undone an edit, I would have been restoring what was there before. The Behnam 00:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the first edit you removed this material: "Reza Shah's ambitious campaigns for modernizing Iran's educational, industrial and transportation infrastructure are attributed for the emergence of social, political and economic reform in Iran after a long period of decline during the final years of the Qajar dynasty" Agha Nader 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
    And I was undoing an edit by removing this? Technically it was added to the page at some point in time, but I didn't do an actual 'undo'. This is the 'three-revert rule', not the 'three-change rule'. The Behnam 01:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You undid the the actions of the editor that added the material. You didn't revert the whole page, but you removed that material (which is a revert); "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor"Agha Nader 01:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
    You may consider the second revert a "novel edit", but you did in fact remove material: "This was a smart move on the part of Nazis since from that point, Iranians were constantly reminded that their country shared a common bond with the Nazi regime". You admit to it when you say "removed POV projection" in the edit summary. Agha Nader 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
    Agha, simply editing the page isn't a revert. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to edit the page more than thrice a day unless we were simply adding information. I am pretty sure you're misunderstanding what 3RR is about on this point. The Behnam 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The, removing material another person added is a revert. Agha Nader 01:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
    "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors". These aren't 'undo's, they're just changes to the article as it was long before the 24hr period. The change involves the removal of some information, but not the 'undoing' of the edits. Basically what you are advocating it is a 'three-change rule' except for content additions. I don't think that is what 3RR is about, or else it would be incredibly difficult to improve neglected and poorly written articles. The Behnam 01:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you not undue, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors? You say "Technically it was added to the page at some point in time". Thus removing it is undoing the actions of another editor. Not allowing edit wars does not make it incredibly difficult to improve neglected and poorly written articles. Agha Nader 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
    After all you did say "The change involves the removal of some information, but not the 'undoing' of the information". What is the difference? Agha Nader 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]
    Hmm. I'm pretty sure that you aren't seeing this correctly, and I'm not sure how to further explain it to you. Whether I am right or you are right, I'll just let the admin who comes to this decide whether the edits really comprise a 3RR violation. Maybe s/he will be able to explain this to you better. Considering that two of them aren't reverts I don't think that there is a problem here. Agha, you might want to take a look at some of the other cases on this page to get a better idea on what 'undo' means. The Behnam 01:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, about your remark on the neglected articles, you might note that the changes also weren't 'edit warring', since the 'edit wars' usually refer to a chain of reverts over a contested passage. Again, this is not the 'three-change rule', but the 'three-revert rule. The Behnam 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page has been protected due to the edit war, so no action will be taken. However, both are cautioned to avoid edit warring and to discuss controversial changes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright. Now I can actually start my wikibreak. The Behnam 02:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mehrshad123 reported by User:The Behnam (Result: No action)

    Three-revert rule violation on Reza Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mehrshad123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Same as above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Billy Ego reported by User:Cberlet (Result: 8 hours)

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

    Complex reverts

    3rd is not a revert but the addition of research to the article. Now that there is a source to back up the reversions, why are you doing this now that you see you were wrong? Billy Ego 03:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a few more for context.--Cberlet 03:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pray tell me, how is the addition of new material to an article constitute a "revert"? Billy Ego 03:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see 2 full reverts and alot of partials. I'll let another admin handle it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3 is not a revert, but "previous version", 1, 2, and 4 all are. First offense, 8 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Captain scarlet reported by User:MRSC (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Comments
    [85] - says here is happy to break 3RR
    More than 24 hours means less than 3 edits per 24 hours MRSC. You are putting me in a bit of a corner. I may have accidently edited these article four times, but you have little friends doing the same. You and your acolytes are victms of breaking the 3RR also, simply not each and everyone of you. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saturdayseven reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:)

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

    Comments

    4 (now 5) simple reverts: [86][87][88][89][90]

    Most of my reverts were to remove libelous assertion backed by nothing more than a self-published random web page. User:Ultramarine is going around wikipedia adding libelous slurs against J. Phillippe Rushton using poor sources. If one reads wikipedia living person policy, it clearly states that removing poorly sourced libelous claims is an exception to the 3 revert rule.WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material Saturdayseven 14:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Everything is sourced using different sources. The Southern Poverty Law Center, Searchlight Magazine, or academic sources are not "a random webpage" or "self-published". If a person claims and tries to spread negative views against whole group(s) of people, in the words of a critic, "Blacks as small-brained, oversexed criminals who multiply at a fast rate and are afflicted with mental disease"[91], then he should also expect criticisms. Wikipedia should not be the place for presenting and spreading only Rushton's views unopposed.Ultramarine 14:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You repeatedly added this to the article: Rushton is accused by critics of advocating a new eugenics movement,[1] and is openly praised by proponents of eugenics.[2] You are painting a living person as a eugenics poster boy using one source that doesn't work and another source which is a self-published web page that doesn't meet wikipedia standards. And your oversimplification of Rushton's theory is also not fair. First of all Rushton believes that racial differences are small and that virtually the full range of human traits exist in all races. He's simply arguing that each race tends to have its own strengths and weaknesses. If you don't want Rushton's ideas expressed on wikipedia the solution is to nominate him for deletion, not to violate wikipedia's libel rules Saturdayseven 15:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of if Rushton advocates or speaks about eugenics or not, or if eugenicists cite him or not, you reverted much more than this without explanation. We should not delete Rushton since his and similar works sponsored by the Pioneer Fund are a prominent view widely used by hate groups. "In publication after publication, hate groups are using this "science" to legitimize racial hatred."[92] But Wikipedia should certainly mention the criticisms.Ultramarine 15:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These are just the facts about how Rushton has been criticized. futurebird 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not my responsibility to differentiate your quality sources from your unreliable sources.~In the time it takes to do that the libelous assertions get more and more exposure. All I know is that some of the sources you added were unreliable and used to justify libelous assertions, hence I reverted all your edits in which these source were added and I am well within wikipedia policy to do so. Saturdayseven 15:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Using your argument, you could blank a whole article if you personally think there is an error somewhere. Not allowed. Again, while the arguments used by hate groups have a place in Wikipedia, so should the counter-arguments.Ultramarine 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not care how valid you think your other sources are, I don't care how passionate you are politically, and I don't care how important you feel your contributions to wikipedia are, if you continue to add self-published fringe web pages to support libelous smears against living people you will be reverted. PERIOD. You do not have the right to jeopardize wikipedia and damage repuations in the process. Do that on a blog using your own name. Don't use wikipedia's good name to do it Saturdayseven 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, your are not allowed to delete large amounts of well-sourced material if you personally think there may be an error in one sentence. Nor are you allowed to violate 3RR.
    I'm afraid you still do not understand: You are not allowed to smear living persons using self-published fringe web pages and links that don't work. I don't care if you added a hundred other valid sources mixed in with the poorly sourced libel and smears. I informed you on your talk page that your source was not up to wikipedia standards yet you continued to add this libelous smear to wikipedia. I may need to talk to someone else as you apparently have no understanding of wikipedia living person policy or how serious it is Saturdayseven 15:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I dispute this, the given link clearly shows that at least some eugenicists cite Rusthon prominently. Do you deny this? Regardless, you are not allowed to blank other parts of the article if you disagree with one part. Regardless, while the arguments used by hate groups in order to create racial hatred may have a place in Wikipedia, so should the counter-arguments.Ultramarine 15:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, why are you continuing to revert material having no relevance to eugenic material: [93]. Your own personal opinion that the sourced material is false in uninteresting.Ultramarine 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't blank anything, I simply reverted an editor that is unable or unwilling to differentiate quality sources from unreliable sources and was using the latter to smear and libel a living person in direct violation of wikipedia's single most important policy. "Some eugenicists" is a weasel term and demonstrates even more failure to grasp wikipedia policy. If a view point is notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia it must be backed by a reliable source, not self-published fringe web pages like this one [94]. I shouldn't have to keep explaining this very basic point to someone who has been editing wikipedia as long as you have Saturdayseven 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You blanked large parts of sourced material with no explanation. Regarding the sentence you have disputed, do you deny that the eugenic source quotes Rusthon? Regardless, you are not allowed to blank other parts of the article if you disagree with one part. Also, why are you right now continuing to revert other material, based on your own unsourced claim regarding what Rushton stated? [95] Wikipedia is not built on personal opinions. While the arguments used by hate groups in order to create racial hatred may have a place in Wikipedia, so should the counter-arguments.Ultramarine 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply reverted you because you were adding unsourced smear. I didn't bother to look at whatever else you were adding but much of it were simple facts that were placed in the controversy section to promote your POV that they should be viewed as controversial. Again, if you mix unsourced crap in with reliable sources we'll just revert you wholesale because you are violating wiki's most important policy & no one has time to sort it out. And I have no idea whether eugenics advocates support Rushton but I'm certainly not going to let some fringe self-published web page be used to smear Rushton as a eugenics icon Saturdayseven 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please respond to questions above.Ultramarine 16:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now, yet another revert of material of sourced academic material.[96]Ultramarine 16:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another revert: [97]Ultramarine 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you bothered to read my edit summaries instead of adding knee-jerk complaints to this notice board you would realize that adding an enormous quote to a well summarized section gives undue weight to one opinion. As for my other removal, you keep placing non-criticism in the criticism section and thus making the article wholly incoherent Saturdayseven 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these are excuses for simply deleting sourced, academic information and violating 3RR.Ultramarine 17:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My socalled violation of 3RR was to remove your libelous smear (in fact when removing poorly sourced libel we are not violating the 3RR if you knew wiki policy)using a self-published fringe web page. You are well aware of the fact that you have violated wikipedia's libel rules which is why you are now trying to divert attention to content disputes we've had since you filed this complaint. In short you are the one who has violated a wikipedia rule far more serious than 3RR and you are further disrupting wikipedia by wasting everyone's time with this here Saturdayseven 17:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even assuming your argument regarding the eugenic sentence is right, that this sentence should be removed and that you can at the same time remove whatever other material you want without explanation, then you have still violated 3RR. Your reverts 1, 5, 6, 7 (see above) do not include the disputed eugenic sentence.Ultramarine 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, not only do you have no understanding of wiki libel rules, or wiki weasel word policy, but you apparently don't know what the 3 revert rule is either. Further your later accusation claiming Rushton blamed blacks for wrecking Toronto was yet another violation of wikipedia's living person policy which states that we can't use sources that rely on conjecture to make extremely libelous claims. In fact that source took Rushton's quote wholly out of context and put their own spin on it and hence I was well within wiki polociy to revert those edits too. You know you could really save us all a lot of time and energy if you actually would read wikipedia's policy Saturdayseven 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave a source, you gave your personal opinion that this source lied. Unsourced personal opinions are not interesting. Read Wikipedia:Attribution.Ultramarine 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You gave a source putting their own interpretation of what Rushton meant, and not the direct quote of what Rushton said. Encyclopedias are built on facts not selective quoations taken out of context intended to smear people. Editors like you who rely on conjecture rather than facts are damaging wikipedia's credibility. There's a reason why wikipedia outlaws the use of conjecture to smear and libel people. Again I don't wish to argue with you anymore because you don't grasp wikipedia policy Saturdayseven 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, read Wikipedia:Attribution. I gave a source, you did not. Your personal opinions and views regarding this is not allowed as source.Ultramarine 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The source was not a primary source or even a direct quotation but a second hand interpetation of what Rushton meant. Such sources are not allowed to be used to make extremely libelous assertions as per wiki living person policy Saturdayseven 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia policy states that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. See Wikipedia:Attribution. Again, your unsourced personal opinion that the source is incorrect is not relevant in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia also states that conjectural interpretations of a source can not be used as sources to smear living person. Nothing to do with my opinion. You also misunderstand wikipedia's secondary source policy. All that means is that we shouldn't reference Rushton when discussing Rushton, however we should cite the source that quoted Rushton directly, and not the source that selectively takes a few words here and there to assert what Rushton meant. Wikipedia states that conjectural interpretations can not be used to smear people Saturdayseven 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is only your unsourced personal opinion that this is conjectural. In your interpretation of policy, anything can be removed from an article if an editor thinks that something is conjectural.Ultramarine 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bomac reported by User:FunkyFly (Result:)

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

    Comments
    The user has repeatedly erased the fact that the song is Bulgarian. The user has been blocked on five occasions before for violating 3RR, the last time for 48 hours.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.163.193.239 reported by User:QuagmireDog (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Rule of Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.163.193.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    Anon. has been blocked already for spamming survival horror games' external links, has come straight from the ban into more of the same, there are more recent examples in their edit history. The times don't seem to fit exactly into 3RR, but even if that's the case it would probably be gaming the system. If this action is incorrect, please at least give me a hint of what I should be doing (not had to deal with vandal/spam before, system is confusing and I really don't want all anons locked out of the page for this user's interference). Thanks. QuagmireDog 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This should be reported somewhere else, there is no current 3RR violation and the diffs supplied are from March 15. --Wildnox(talk) 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Any idea where? It's simple spam as opposed to vandalism, and requesting a page block seems extreme. Here are more identical reversions: [102], [103] and [104]. Apart from waiting for the user to trap themselves with more than three edits (considering this post that possibility has already been broadcast in neon lights), I don't see how I can do any more other than revert-war back (which I don't want to do since all I'm doing is removing a little spammy language, not something I should be slapped on the wrists for). QuagmireDog 18:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe try WP:AN/I, that is kind of a catch all report page. --Wildnox(talk) 18:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aivazovsky reported by User:AdilBaguirov (Result: 24h)

    User Aivazovsky has violated the ArbCom notice [105] of only one (1) revert per day per article on the Treaty_of_Kars page [106] Also, in an additional violation of ArbCom, user Aivazovsky did not discuss his changes in the Talk page.

    • 1st revert on 08:09, March 17, 2007: [107]
    • 2nd revert on 09:55, March 17, 2007: [108]
    • 3rd revert (partial) on 11:29, March 17, 2007: [109]

    Comment He has a history of violations of both 3RR rule and 1RR injunction (e.g., see above case on 12 March). He has been very disruptive on this and other pages, by eliminating any references from Azerbaijani and Turkish sites, whilst preserving and inserting Armenian sites. He also claims (in his third, partial, revert) that Armenian SSR, Azerbaijan SSR, Georgian SSR did not exist by October 1921, when the Treaty was concluded, which is false, as the first two existed since April 1920 and November 1920 respectively, whilst the third one since early 1921. --AdilBaguirov 17:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Since I at first had trouble finding the injunction on the page, here is a quote of the section to help any admin looking at this report:

    Temporary injunction

    1) Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page.

    --Wildnox(talk) 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. Thatcher131 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Artw reported by User:Beachy (Result: No violation)

    Three-revert rule violation on Web 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ArtW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    ArtW has been removing a key quote by Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of the Web, and director of the W3C) in the Web 2.0 article. I did not revert ArtW's original reversion and instead created a discussion on the talk page which became a vote. After over a month of voting, the outcome was to include the quote by Tim Berners-Lee. When I reinstated it, ArtW then removed the quote again, three times in less than 24 hours.

    No violation, only three reverts have taken place. Please use dispute resolution, not a vote, WP:NOT a democracy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:However whatever reported by Gwen Gale 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (Result:)

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

    Single topic user persists in attempting to revert-war over his assertion despite my repeated requests that he support his assertion with a reliable citation and stop edit-warring. I have also tried re-wordings and warnings. This user immediately reverted me after being warned he was in danger of violating 3rr on his talk page. Gwen Gale 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gwen Gale reported by However whatever 19:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (Result:)

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

    This new user seems rather familiar with this page. Meanwhile I support WP policy and the 3rr rule. Gwen Gale 19:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sample violation report to copy

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

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

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

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

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

    Note on completing a 3RR report:

    • Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
    • Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
    • We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
    • Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory
    1. ^ Institute for the Study of Academic Racism Archives
    2. ^ http://www.eugenics.net/ Website including prominent reference to Rushton's works
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=115851408"