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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
DennyColt (talk | contribs)
6,898 edits
→‎[[User:Marskell]] reported by [[User:Coppertwig]] (Result:): I wouldn't block for 3rr or even warn here, myself...
Line 1,478: Line 1,478:


::*Ad hominem. --[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
::*Ad hominem. --[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

CopperTwig [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADennyColt&diff=118099420&oldid=118068162 asked me] to comment here. My initial edit on the polll page was honestly what seemed (naively I guess) an attempt to just streamline and "get it done". When my edits were refactored really by Marskell (not really reverted) as he showed in the diff above I was agreeable with it and I still am, I didn't consider it an aggressive revert or I might have... pursued it further. Like I told him on the talk page: ok, works for me. FWIW, I don't care for in principle and prefer cut and dried situations, and don't care for the in principle bit, but I am fine with the inclusion of the special note (that is what compromise and teamwork is all about). I wouldn't block for 3rr or even warn here, myself... - [[User_talk:DennyColt|Denny]] 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 22:14, 26 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:A Man In Black reported by User:DHowell (Result:No block)

    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]

    User:CrystalizedAngels reported by User:Ttguy (Result:Page protected)

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


    Ttguy 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments

    This user did not get a 3RR warning because it is fairly certain that this user already knows about the policy. this posting to Wasted Time R is warning Wasted Time R about 3RR. The posting is by 129.132.239.8 whom is suspected of being CrystalizedAngels. A checkuser has been requested to confirm this.Ttguy 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page is fully protected now. Seems there is no point in blocking CrystalizedAngels at the moment, since blocking the user would just result in a delay of discussion at the talk page. Nishkid64 19:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser confirms that CrystalizedAngels is 129.132.239.8 Ttguy 11:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SamEV reported by User:SqueakBox (Result: Already blocked)

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

    Sam has reverted a further 3 times. A new user User:Ferreterrera has also been reverting more than 3 times and I have just warned him not to do so again, SqueakBox 20:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Users engaged in the edit war have already been blocked. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SqueakBox reported by User:DXRAW (Result: No block)

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


    Comments
    Possibly using a Sock to bypass the 3RR Greatgallsoffire is a SPA which has only being used for inserting the NPOV tag which is what User:SqueakBox is doing. DXRAW 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Improperly formatted report - we need original version reverted to, actual revert diffs and diff times. You provide none. If you suspect sockpuppetry you can try WP:RFCU. No block. Crum375 02:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:El_Cubano reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result:Warning )

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

    While not particularly complex reverts, these are not purly simple reverts either; each revert was to the same passage and shows the same attempt to remove altogether or substantially weaken or discredit the comments of critics of article's subject.

    Comments

    El Cubano has been editing since October 2005 and so is aware of 3RR policy.

    Four reverts are not within 24 hours of each other, user cautioned to cease edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I fixed the timestamps, as per the diffs linked to. Guettarda 06:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why just a warning? Guettarda fixed the times and it's clearly a violation. 151.151.73.169 21:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.254.29.248 reported by User:Kntrabssi (Result:Blocked)

    Three-revert rule violation on Leandro Barbosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.254.29.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [6]
    Comments

    I have tried very hard not to report this user, for his edit warring and for his personal attacks against me, which can be read on my user page. The user even warned me for deleting content on his user page, after I ADDED a response to his reply on my page.

    Additional comment — Even though Kntrabssi (talk · contribs · count) attempted to explain why the anon editor's contributions could be construed as non-NPOV, the anon editor continued to revert/re-edit their views into the article. The anon editor also deleted several warnings from their talk page. Hopefully, the {{3RR}} warning was sufficient to dissuade the anon editor from pushing the issue further. Caknuck 05:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brushcome reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on University of California, Riverside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brushcome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User:Smith2006 reported by User:Andrew c (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mass (liturgy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Smith2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    User:Eupator reported by User:Atabek (Result: No violation)

    User has violated the 1RR injunction issued in the ArbCom case [7], attempting to forward the Khachkar destruction article to Khachkar destruction within Nakhichevan twice, reverting to the version by User:Artaxiad, who tried moving the article to Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan. "Within" and "in" are the same, despite being a crafty method of making different RVs and avoiding injunctions:

    Not only that it was done only once.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Any forwarding is considered a revert, and you had two of those to the article with the same name. Moreover, you also removed the big portion of text without discussion and consensus on the page, and also reverted in one of your edits to MarshalBagramyan's version [8]. Atabek 18:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not, it was moved to something new; hence, not a revert. Second, there was only one move along with one consecutive edit. Where is the second one? If there was a second one than it would have been the first revert which still would not justify this extremely disruptive, desperate and bad faith report.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Move of the page [9] is your first revert, as you practically reverted it to Artaxiad’s version, [10] and deletion of the section on Armenia is your second rv, as it repeats the same attempt by User:MarshallBagramyan [11] or User:Aivazovsky [12] Grandmaster 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Practically is not the same as exactly. I haven't checked what others have moved it to. I know that what I moved to was a brand new name so once again it was no a revert. It was my first edit of the article and cannot be considered a revert, nor was it like anything done before especially your diff. The move and the removal of the section were one after another. It's one, not two.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two or more consecutive edits are not considered more than one revert for the purposes of assessing 3RR violations. There is no violation here.--Domitius 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They both know that very well.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation here. He might have gone against consensus by moving the article, but that is not considered a revert. The second edit is not technically a revert, as I don't see that entire section being added on its own by another editor recently. It just seems like a deletion of material. Nishkid64 20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He moved the page to Khachkar destruction within Nakhichevan, and it was previously moved to Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan, so in my opinion it is a revert to the same version. And deletion of a section is also not a first time action, it was deleted before, so it should count as an rv as well. Grandmaster 21:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit summary after the move stated "Do not move until AfD is complete". The AfD was complete when Eupator made the move. Was there some consensus on the talk page about the page title, and did the user know about the page move situation? Nishkid64 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There were 2 AfD’s on this article, both resulted with keep. [13] [14] This user took part in both of them. And my edit summary was: “The AfD was to keep the article, not to move it”, because no consensus was reached on AfD. The issue is currently being discussed, so the page should not be moved until a consensus is reached. Grandmaster 22:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Akradecki reported by User:Akradecki (Result: No action)

    I'd like to report myself for an inadvertent violation of 3RR, [15] [16] [17] [18]. At issue is an editor who keeps changing the lead paragraph of this article. The text of the lead was decided on by draft/discussion/consensus a while ago. Because of the concerns he's brought up, that consensus is being rediscussed in detail on the talk page. Rather than waiting for consensus to be reached, he keeps adding the material back in (in violation of the earlier consensus), and I've been reverting. My 4th edit missed the 24 hr period by about 3 hours, so I'm in violation, and thought it best to report myself. I have also directly reported this to an admin, at User talk:Chrislk02, and he is currently involved. Akradecki 18:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have looked at this. The final revert was inadvertantly over the WP:3RR. In this situation, being it was inadvertant, a block is unecessary. Should another admin disagree with me, please feel free to over-turn my decision. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) No action taken. Please read up on the rule, and more importantly focus on the policy behind it, so there are no further problems. Newyorkbrad 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the future, please use the appropriate format for reporting 3RR violations. Nishkid64 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lordknowle reported by User:Elonka (Result: no violation / page protected)

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

    Comments
    Over the last three weeks, Lordknowle (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting a link to his own website.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Consensus on the talkpage has confirmed that this is inappropriate, but he persists, and is now rapidly reverting other users who attempt to remove the link. A block for violating 3RR is requested. --Elonka 21:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user has not yet violated WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours. The 1st and 2nd revert link is considered as one revert only, so therefore, there have only been 3 total reverts. Nishkid64 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the sake of completeness, this was also reported on WP:ANI (in a request to have LK blocked for several weeks for disruption). As a result of that discussion, the page was protected. >Radiant< 10:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Elonka reported by User:Lordknowle (Result: No report)

    Comments
    Elonka (talk · contribs) has been posting messages on my Talk page threatening me with suspension over the 3RR issue when she clearly has no authority to do so. She is arbitrarily removing links and edits on the Knights Templar articles and then claiming consensus of the Talk page when none actually exists. The three people who have concurred with her arguments are users who are clearly friends of hers, as they have all contributed to her personal self-glorification Wiki entry, which is my opinion as to what it actually is. She has reverted the link on several occasions now, and claims to have Wiki authority to do so in both her comments and follow-ups to the Talk pages. In addition she has labelled my account with the SPA tag in Talk pages (I've since removed it as defamatory and childish), when I have clearly been contributing over the last 14 months to different articles - this is a clear breach of Wikipedia policy on defamatory SPA tagging. In all, she tries to make out that she is some type of super-user with these constant threats, which I understand is in breach of Wikipedia's rules impersonating Sysops.

    A suspension for violating 3RR, SPA and Sysop policy is requested. Lord Knowle 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the 3RR noticeboard, if you'd like to make a general request for admin intervention, you may post at WP:ANI. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Woogie10w reported by User:Ksyrie (Result: Page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on World War II casualties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Woogie10w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments

    I provide the verifiable sources for the chines casualties,and the User:Woogie10w even didn't want to give a reasonable talk for her or his revert.--Ksyrie 22:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if the third edit is a revert (which is questionable), that would only make one edit and three reverts. However, both editors are encouraged to engage in discussion or dispute resolution rather than an edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page has been protected by Shanes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). No need to block at the moment. Get the dispute resolved at the talk page now, and request unprotection at WP:RFPP once the dispute has been resolved. Nishkid64 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The third edit is not a revert? I don't see any reason for it not being a revert. See the article history. It looks like four reverts. Nishkid64 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Am I missing something? The first one looks like just an edit to me, unless there's a previous same version I'm missing, then a revert to that, then another edit (though that could likely be called a partial revert), then another exact revert to it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • My mistake, I mistook the first link as a revert, when there was no previous version. However, the third edit looks like a revert, or a partial revert. Nishkid64 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sir james paul reported by User:Sam Blacketer (Result: 24 hours)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: 22:43, 19 March 2007: NB the start: "the theory of evolution".
    • 1st revert: 22:25, 20 March 2007: Inserts "the theory of".
    • 2nd revert: 22:37, 20 March 2007: Inserts "the theory of".
    • 3rd revert: 22:50, 20 March 2007: Inserts "Some people consider evolution to be just a theory and some say that it is not true."
    • 4th revert: 23:02, 20 March 2007: Inserts "Some people consider evolution to be just a theory and some say that it is not true. There are also some who believe it is fact. The topic of evolution is a controversy."
    • 5th revert: 23:12, 20 March 2007: Inserts "the theory of".
    Comments
    A complex report but the user seems determined to add the remark that evolution is a theory somewhere. Sam Blacketer 23:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours, user's obviously been around long enough to know the 3RR and specifically states intent to violate it anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Smee reported by User:Sm1969 (Result: Page protected)

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

    Here is the block log for User:Smeelgova (now User:Smee) showing the prior blocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Smeelgova


    These are five (5) diffs showing changes away from the word "states" to "claims" or "asserts" both of which are synonyms. This is a violation of the spirit of the 3RR policy, but not the letter. User:Smee was known as User:Smeelgova until about a month ago and has an exensive 3RR blocking history for edit warring on this article (Landmark Educaiton) and immediately related articles as shown in the block log for User:Smeelgova.

    06:18 on 20-Mar-07 (states to claims) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=116468851&oldid=116468657

    06:34 on 20-Mar-07 (states to claims) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=116470720&oldid=116469833

    18:00 on 20-Mar-07 (states to asserts) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=116575310&oldid=116540378

    19:03 on 20-Mar-07 (states to asserts) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=116589921&oldid=116589733

    21:05 on 20-Mar-07 (states to asserts) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=116619491&oldid=116619292

    • This is a non-issue. User:AJackl and I had discussed this on the talk page, and I changed it to what he had requested. After that, I don't believe I had changed it back. If so, it is a miscommunication between myself and AJackl, nothing more, and I will voluntarily change back - I have no problem utilizing the word "states" in that particular section. Smee 03:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • In fact, you will note that in my last version, DIFF, the word "claims" is not used within that section, but "asserts", which is the same as "states" - I was complying with AJackl's request in that respect. Smee 03:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • DISAGREE! Both "claims" and "asserts" are statements that cast doubt. "States" is neutral language. This was an intentional effort on your behalf to avoid 3RR. If this was not a 3RR, you could simply leave the language alone without changing five times (5) within 24 hours. You should be held to account for the edit warring. You have done many of the after-the-fact courtesy reverts when other editors take the time to file the 3RR report. Sm1969 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the DIFF where I was trying to compromise and implement AJackl's suggestion, changing "claims" to "asserts". You will note that my edit summary stated: Charter, change "claims" to "asserts" ... - This was a good faith effort here, well before this 3RR was filed. After that, I did not change it back again, and was not intending to do so. The issue was already over at this point and the conflict with that point had ceased, this was a done deal, I would even have been fine with "states", I had thought that "asserts", was stronger language for AJackl actually, and I was trying to assume good faith here and implement Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. Smee 03:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • DISAGREE! Your issue is not just with Ajackl, but all the other editors on this page. "states" is the neutral language of an encyclopedia, but your personal POV insists on changing "states" to "claims" or "asserts" both of which cast doubt. Three of your reversions were after your "good faith" compromise. Sm1969 04:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop with the usage of CAPS and the personal attacks and assumptions as to what you think is my "personal POV". That is not appropriate. We are going back and forth here. The fact of the matter is, if others view "asserts" different than "claims", that is a miscommunication, I was actually trying to go with AJackl's intention. If that is viewed differently be him than he could have commented on the talk page as such, and I would have voluntarily changed accordingly. I think the Admins can see from Sm1969's usage of "DISAGREE!", and responding immediately to my posts that this is more of an issue of something other than a simple report. I am going to take this particlular article off of my watchlist in order to avoid conflict with this individual. Smee 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Done. Off my watchlist. Regardless of what happens here, I am tired of the bull-baiting and attacks, legal threats, and such from this user. I am simply going to try to avoid him for the time being. Thanks. Smee 04:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        • I only have 10 edits so far this year and administrators have specifically disagreed with your assertion that I have used legal threats. Sm1969 04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user has a long-held grudge against me for some reason, but that is irrelevant. As stated above, I am going to avoid any future conflicts and the article is staying off of my watchlist. 3RR is not meant to be punitive. The issue is over here. Thanks for your time. Smee 04:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Page protected due to extensive edit warring. Please talk it out or seek dispute resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Smee reported by User:Sm1969 (Result: Page protected)

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

    This is a second 3RR report on User:Smee. (I only have 10 edits so far this year, but have been watching this page and Smee's conduct.)

    Here is the block log for User:Smeelgova (now User:Smee) showing the prior blocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Smeelgova


    Here are four diffs, a base version and then three reverts within 24 hours. Smee has added the word "sometimes" to the sentence "Courts in the United States of America have sometimes" four times within 24 hours.

    06:34 on 20-Mar-07 (addition of "sometimes") http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=116470720&oldid=116469833

    18:00 on 20-Mar-07 (addition of "sometimes") http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=116575310&oldid=116540378

    19:03 on 20-Mar-07 (addition of "sometimes") http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=116589921&oldid=116589733

    21:05 on 20-Mar-07 (addition of "sometimes") http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education&diff=116619491&oldid=116619292

    Sm1969 04:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please see above. I am done with this. The article is off my watchlist and is staying that way. I am done here, there is no conflict, I will not be editing that article. This is simply an issue of this particular user having it out against me and trying to get me blocked. This is highly inappropriate behaviour, 3RR is not supposed to be meant as punitive, and I am done editing this article. Through. I have had it. Thanks for your time. Smee 04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • You are always polite and contrite when you are called on it. We have gone through this cycle numerous times. Sm1969 04:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, as I always try to be most polite, whilst enduring personal attacks from others, and always. In any event, this discussion is pointless now, I am not going to edit that article again, at least, not for a long while. Let us stop going back and forth and see what the Admin has to say about this, and regardless of the outcome, I am taking a good long break from that article. Thanks. Smee 04:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • This really is not about what you think are personal attacks, but rather about violations of the 3RR policy. Your fingers pushed the keys on four and five separate instances in the last 24 hours reverting the same or substantially the same language. You have done this several times in the past, and usually ask for forgiveness after the fact. It's up to the Admins to enforce the letter and the spirit of the 3RR policy as they have done before you as shown in your previous block log before changing your identity from Smeelgova to Smee. Sm1969 04:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As opposed to Sm1969, I am going to avoid further comment here, so as not to take up space on this page. Thank you for your time and please inform me of your decision on my talk page. Regardless of the decision, I will not be editing that particular article anymore. Thank you. Yours, Smee 04:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Same as above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:24.44.253.47 reported by User:Athaenara (Result:1 week)

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

    24.44.253.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    Previous serial reverts by this user (same article) on March 17 (five) and March 19 (three). Article has frequently been spammed with blog content and tabloid-style WP:OR in the past two months by fourteen user/IPs, all but one of them - Chulcoop (talk · contribs) - unregistered. — Athænara ✉ 11:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant single purpose account used to edit-war. 1 week. yandman 12:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    Thanks, Yandman! — Æ. ✉ 12:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:David Spart reported by User:Shlomke (Result: 24 hours)

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


    Comments
    • N/A, he has made nearly 800 edits and therefore can be assumed to be aware of this most basic rule. Shlomke 22:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.5.250.146 reported by User:Athaenara (Result: 24 hours)

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

    68.5.250.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    Also uses misleading edit summaries,+ e.g. March 12 "Previous version reverted to." 2nd revert, March 20. — Athænara ✉ 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Addenda

    75.31.17.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be the same editor:

    75.16.33.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now stepped in with identical revert:

    24 hours for main and sock IP's. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Seraphim Blade. — Athænara ✉ 09:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DavidYork71 reported by User:Aminz (Result: 24 hours)

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

    DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Note, Aminz changed this diff after DY had responded. Arrow740 06:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The original diff that was reverted was corrected[32]. It is clearly a revert anyways. --Aminz 06:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Here the user self-reverts with the edit summary Possible 3RR self-revert [33].

    but later David York makes another revert:


    Comments
    This user inserts OR to the articles. Please see [35],[36], [37], [38] --Aminz 04:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user and User:Netscott were attempting to find which images were fair use and correctly captioned. Some of this seems like edit-warring, but in fact the "reverts" were responses to the constructive criticism of Netscott, in the form of finding citations, verifying context, etc. They appear to have worked it out, as one can read on Netscott's talk page. Arrow740 05:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Netscott just expressed something to the contrary after seeing this. Arrow740 05:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked Netscott to comment here and his reply was this [39]. I could find this diff [40] saying a different thing("The article is so riddled with original research right now (particularly surrounding the images") . --Aminz 05:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please see this diff regarding Arrow's comment :[41] --Aminz 05:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Netscott has his biases: his analysis should not be viewed as objective. Arrow740 06:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The user himself self-reverted saying "Possible 3RR self-revert" and then later made a new revert. It is clear that the user has made more than 3RRs (5 reverts infact). Even the self-revert is first removing "totallydisputed" tag and then adding back the "neutrality" tag. It is a partial self-revert. --Aminz 06:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1st: this is supplying a picture totally different to the one claimed reverted back in by the complainant
    2nd: this is supplying the picture with its cite when it was taken out because Netscott said it lacked one (see his edit summary)
    3rd: this is supplying the picture with an altered caption in response to captioning complaint by Netscott who had complained
    4th: this is supplying a picture with altered captioning and additional citing in response to complaint by Netscott about the caption not establishing relevance and not reliably source. The source provided is the British Naval Museum.
    5th: this is removing the dispute tag after dealing with the substance of the dispute (picture sourcing and captioning)
    then Netscott claims 3RR on my talk page so my response is to resupply the POV dispute tag
    6th: this is commenting out the introduction and drafting my own version, with invitation to comment on talk. The reason for this is recent GA-review (see talk) strongly criticising the lead the lead and offering it as a reason for the article to fail GA.
    In short, what's alleged as reverts are supplying information with revisions in response to other editor's specific complaints (sourcing, captioning) in justification of their removal action.
    I can't write more than this because I have to go soon.DavidYork71 06:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are various reasons for the images being OR [42], [43].--Aminz 06:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DavidYork has been found persistently undoing the edits of others and engaging in unencyclopedic tendentious editing. he had previously violated 3RR[44], though i offered him to self revert, which he failed to fully comply with. ITAQALLAH 07:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Itaqallah was kind enough to fully explain the 3RR at that time. Prior to that, DY had thought it forbade doing the same revert 4 times. Arrow740 09:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    7RR by User:Deepak D'Souza reported by User:Ragib (Result:31 hours)

    5RR 6RR 7RR Three-revert rule violation on Jana Gana Mana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Deepak D'Souza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 22:47, 15 November 2006 (previous version with redundant script, which was removed by consensus)

    And now,


    31 hours. John Reaves (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments
    • The user has been informed of the 3RR rule right after his 3rd revert. Instead, he reverted again with taunts in edit summaries. Upon being informed of this 3RR report, he has reverted it two more times. --Ragib 07:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alyeska reported by User:Matthew (Result: 24 hours)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [45]
    • 1st revert: [46]
    • 2nd revert: [47]
    • 3rd revert: [48]
    • 4th revert: [49]
    Comments
    Has a previous 3RR block, Alyeksa insists on adding baseless speculation with no citation, part of his edit also duplicates already stated information. Matthew 08:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:One Night In Hackney reported by User:Astrotrain (Result: Warning)

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


    Comments
    Has approx 9000 edits so well aware of 3RR- no previous blocks Astrotrain 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs, not oldids. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorted Astrotrain 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Frivolus report, I haven't broken 3RR. First two reverts were reverting vandalism, including one instance where Astrotrain vandalised the article. One Night In Hackney303 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit you refer was not simple vandalism- and I didn't vandalise the article. Astrotrain 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As the first edit was from an anonymous editor with no previous contributions, I will presume that its misidentification as vandalism was in good faith. Disagreeable edits are not vandalism, please use more caution in the future. If the two of you cannot agree, please seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, but to be fair, it wasn't misidentification. The IP editor changed a sourced claim of non-sectarian to sectarian, which falls under the sneaky vandalism criterion in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 16:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Corticopia reported by User:Serg!oo (Result: user warned)

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

    (From 1st to 3rd: 12 hours)

    • ¡Good days! I am writing to report to report this user because s/he is completely intransigent and because his/her unjustified rv's criteria of info with references.

    Despite his/her contributions shows a extese list of similar actuations I am telling, now I refer concretly the user's actuation in the article of continent, where s/he constantly reverts the map of the traditional POV and its references. In addition, in every rv s/he restaure the word "scattered", too.

    I hope would not matter I am not an habitual contributor of en:.
    Yours faithfully
    Sergio S. R.

    • The user has now been warned per 3RR not to let this happen again. In the future, warn the user for 3RR violations. Also, it seems to me that there are only 3 reverts, not four. Nishkid64 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. The reporter added a redundant, incorrect, partial map to that article, and edit summaries removing it clearly justified why it was redundant with the content already in that article. Garbage in, garbage out. And as I have not violated 3RR in this instance, this report is rather moot and whiny. Corticopia 14:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leto61 reported by User:Illyria05 (Result: warned)

    Three-revert rule violation on Medium (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Leto61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    *User keeps removing a part of the cast table, without saying why.. An IP started this, and Leto continued.. Matthew and I have left messages on their talk page, but user just keeps reverting.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user has now been warned per 3RR not to let this happen again. Nishkid64 21:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Greatgallsoffire reported by User:DXRAW (Result: user warned)

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


    Comments
    • The user has now been warned per 3RR not to let this happen again. Also, it seems the links were malformed. The user had not made any edits on March 23, 2007 and I found the user's reverts on March 21 in the article history. Nishkid64 00:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:80.193.161.89 reported by User:Michaelbusch (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Wigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.193.161.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    User is involved in an editing dispute with User:Man2 and User:G-Man, in which the latter two may very well be wrong. Both User:Man2 and User:G-Man are at their edit limits for the page.
    • I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Also, please provide valid revert links! You only provided the times, not the actual diffs. Nishkid64 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mayor Quimby reported by User:Pomte (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Comments
    Content dispute; refusal to attempt to achieve consensus before reverting, at Talk:Regina neighbourhoods and Talk:Regina, Saskatchewan#Local Issues. –Pomte 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bold text

    User:Malfunction reported by User:Wildnox (Result: indef block)

    Three-revert rule violation on List of thrash metal bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Malfunction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    Another violation from Malfunction, who just got off a 72 hour block for 3RR violation on the same article. Requesting the block either be long or indefinite, as the user seems to have no interest in Wikipedia other than edit-warring and POV-pushing. --Wildnox(talk) 01:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef block. 3rd 3RR in 2 weeks, and going through his contribs I only see disruption and abuse. Crum375 03:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Miaers reported by User:PaddyM (Result: 1 Week)

    Three-revert rule violation on 2007 Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miaers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    Miaers has been blocked before for violating WP:3RR and he seems to have not learned from that experience. It has been removed from his talk page, but here is the diff for that block. He is only interested in his POV and simply disregards debate from anyone who disagrees. Additionally, it was noted in a previous edit summary on the page that he was in violation of 3RR, but he continued his crusade. Cheers, PaddyM 01:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked for 1 week for repeated 3RR violation. Crum375 03:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Touisiau reported by User:Warrens (Result: 8 hours)

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

    Comments
    User is repeatedly adding {{NPOV}} tags to this article (and its talk page, where the user re-added it after being told that it doesn't go on talk pages), but hasn't indicated any specific issues that are actual problems with the text of the article. Thanks. -/- Warren 11:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8 hours, first violation. However, all editors involved are reminded to keep their discussion civil. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Michaelsanders (Result: blocked 24 hrs)

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

    Comments
    User keeps removing sourced information from the article.
    User:Michaelsanders keeps adding speculation to the article and using unreliable sources: self-published books by unknown fans, that have not been fact-checked in any way.
    User:Michaelsanders keeps ignoring a consensus that is shown by a hidden-text inside the article, adressed to Wikipedia contributors: "PLEASE DO NOT ADD SPECULATION HERE! ALL HORCRUXES MENTIONED IN H-P CANON TEXT BY DUMBLEDORE ARE ALREADY LISTED. DO NOT ADD OTHER "POSSIBLE HORCUXES" AND THEORIES UNLESS THEY ARE MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY _IN_THE_BOOKS_ OR BY ROWLING ON HER OFFICIAL WEB SITE. PERSONAL THEORIES ABOUT OTHER POSSIBLE HORCRUXES THAT HAVE NO BASIS IN THE TEXT OF THE NOVELS BELONG ON FAN WEBSITES OR FAN DISCUSSION FORUMS. SPECULATIVE THEORIES ARE NOT PART OF WIKIPEDIA! SEE THIS PAGE'S DISCUSSION AREA "
    User:Michaelsanders is artificially preventing anyone to edit his version of the article, by pretending that "no one has the right to remove sourced statements":
    Note that the "sources" used by User:Michaelsanders violate every principles of reliability established by Wikipedia
    Note that every single contributor here is free to add/delete any content, if he can justify his edits and that no edit is meant to be permanent just because it has a "source": in that case, the source is bad. Content removed, and that's all.
    User:Michaelsanders is using threats in his edit summaries [57] in order to intimidate people and to prevent them by force to make any edit to the article, thus imposing his point of view in the article.
    Please also note that User:Michaelsanders is known for constant edit warring and violation of the 3RR rule, and has already been blocked twice for such acts [58]
    He is responsible for several article protection after having created an edit war: [59]
    Please note in every single article he's touched, he has always favored reverts without any form of discussion or justifications, which prompted several users to warn him about the 3RR rule: [60]
    Folken de Fanel 14:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, it appears User:Michaelsanders is adding unreliable sources just for the sake of provoking an edit war and for having the opportunity to report me: such behavior, of downgrading the quality of articles just to put forward personal agenda is not fit for Wikipedia.Folken de Fanel 14:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." The book you object to is a compilation, edited by a well-known researcher in the field ("Granger has taught Harry Potter courses at Barnes and Noble University (BNU) online since 2004 to students around the world. He is a frequent guest on radio and television programs..." - go to [www.zossima.com] for more information), fact checked by the contributors, and I see no reason to consider it unreliable, given that its tagline is "Six expert Harry Potter detectives examine the evidence", rather than any grandiose claim that the authors have all the answers. Moreover, it is an accepted fact that sourced information in articles is not to be removed. Michael Sanders 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources
    • " A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.
    • "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable. "
    "2. Professional self-published sources
    When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one."
    2) The author of the book is NOT well known, and the book has not been fact-checked (who could check facts about still unpublished book ? -> unreliability). The book is self-published and thus isn't a reliable source.
    3) I don't know where you got this. One thing is sure, whether sourced or not (whether you like it or not), ANY content is removable. And in this case, the content is not even reliably sourced, thus you really have nothing to say.
    4) On a final note, if you think Wikipedia is your personal blog and that you can ignore its rules and prevent people for editing your version and to apply the rules, you're seriously mistaken. Folken de Fanel 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Michaelsanders (Result: Warning, already blocked)

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


    Comments
    User keeps removing sourced information from the article.
    User:Michaelsanders keeps adding speculation to the article and using unreliable sources: self-published books by unknown fans, that have not been fact-checked in any way.
    User:Michaelsanders is artificially preventing anyone to edit his version of the article, by pretending that "no one has the right to remove sourced statements":
    Note that the "sources" used by User:Michaelsanders violate every principles of reliability established by Wikipedia
    Note that every single contributor here is free to add/delete any content, if he can justify his edits and that no edit is meant to be permanent just because it has a "source": in that case, the source is bad. Content removed, and that's all.
    User:Michaelsanders is using threats in his edit summaries [67] in order to intimidate people and to prevent them by force to make any edit to the article, thus imposing his point of view in the article.
    Please also note that User:Michaelsanders is known for constant edit warring and violation of the 3RR rule, and has already been blocked twice for such acts [68]
    He is responsible for several article protection after having created an edit war: [69]
    Please note in every single article he's touched, he has always favored reverts without any form of discussion or justifications, which prompted several users to warn him about the 3RR rule: [70]
    Folken de Fanel 14:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, it appears User:Michaelsanders is adding unreliable sources just for the sake of provoking an edit war and for having the opportunity to report me: such behavior, of downgrading the quality of articles just to put forward personal agenda is not fit for Wikipedia.Folken de Fanel 14:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources." "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications." The book you object to is a compilation, edited by a well-known researcher in the field ("Granger has taught Harry Potter courses at Barnes and Noble University (BNU) online since 2004 to students around the world. He is a frequent guest on radio and television programs..." - go to [www.zossima.com] for more information), fact checked by the contributors, and I see no reason to consider it unreliable, given that its tagline is "Six expert Harry Potter detectives examine the evidence", rather than any grandiose claim that the authors have all the answers. Moreover, it is an accepted fact that sourced information in articles is not to be removed. Michael Sanders 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources
    • " A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.
    • "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable. "
    "2. Professional self-published sources
    When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking. Self-published sources, such as personal websites and blogs, must never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. If a third-party source has published the same or substantially similar material, that source should be used in preference to the self-published one."
    2) The author of the book is NOT well known, and the book has not been fact-checked (who could check facts about still unpublished book ? -> unreliability). The book is self-published and thus isn't a reliable source.
    3) I don't know where you got this. One thing is sure, whether sourced or not (whether you like it or not), ANY content is removable. And in this case, the content is not even reliably sourced, thus you really have nothing to say.
    4) On a final note, if you think Wikipedia is your personal blog and that you can ignore its rules and prevent people for editing your version and to apply the rules, you're seriously mistaken. Folken de Fanel 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warning to both editors, who are now blocked for edit warring, to cease and desist, or they will both be blocked for a much longer duration. Crum375 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jossi reported by User:Coppertwig (Result: 8 hours)

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

    • 6th revert: 12:39 23 March
      • (Deleted "What is your opinion" which had been added by David Levy at [71] 00:20 23 March)


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


    Comments

    In my warning on the user's talk page, which occurred before the last 3 reverts, I also asked that the user say "revert" or an abbreviation of it in the edit summary when reverting; the user has not complied with this request. --Coppertwig 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8 hours. Putting "revert" in edit summaries is not required (though helpful), but refraining from an edit war is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jossi was unblocked because he promised to stop reverting, as his block log will show. He has broken this already, per this edit. Please keep watching.
    The 24 hours is up, so any undertaking not to revert during the block period no longer applies. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jossi didn't agree to never revert ever again, he agreed to lay off while he would've been blocked. I'm becoming progressively more disturbed by the behavior of some users involved in that, and it's not Jossi that I mean by that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's expressed intention to take a day away from the page here, which is fine by me; I will probably do the same. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    William M. Connolley, reported by User:zeeboid - no block

    Three-revert rule violation on Scientific data archiving. William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: This admin, who should know better, seams to get a little carried away in changing topics dispite continued discussion on the talk pages. for more examples, see User:William M. Connolley's history.--Zeeboid 16:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This report is wrong: the 16:10 edit reverts the 16:03 (as the reporter is fully aware: this is a bad faith report) hence this is only 3R William M. Connolley 17:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so. Even if you don't include the self revert, and the revert associated with it, there are still 3 reverts on the same topic within 24 hours. 09:04 14:47 and 21:44.--Zeeboid 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are allowed, though not encouraged, to have 3 reverts in 24 hours, per WP:3RR. In this case, the self-revert cancels one of the reverts, ending up with 3 reverts. No block. Crum375 18:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been moved to the talk page (so as to keep it out of the main view of other, I suppose). -- Tony of Race to the Right 01:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Need others to weigh in becides Crum375. an admin who has had this problem in the past should not be given so much "freedom" with continuing to have this issue, as stated here: talk page--Zeeboid 22:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lost cause...while people will deny it, and others have written policies and guidelines saying otherwise, the reality is that admins are above reproach, above the rules and if you dare expect them to be held accountable you may find yourself banned. This is just the latest episode in a continuing saga. -- Tony of Race to the Right 02:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • plays sad violin* he made 3 reverts, the other two are simply administrative of his own edits, they were not reverting anyone besides himself, that is allowable as much as you want. BTW I am not an admin or have any stake in the article in question. -- Stbalbach 03:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This two-day-old report is closed. As stated above, no action will be taken. No further comments should be made here. Newyorkbrad 03:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tvoz reported by User:HumanThing (Result: No violation)

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

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

    There's a 7th and 8th revert.


    Not necessary as Tvoz is a very experienced editor editing nearly 5000 times.

    Comments
    <Tvoz has engaged in disruptive editing......he reverts to old wording even when multiple editors have worked out a compromise. He has done disruptive editing other times, this is just one of many, many times he has violated the 3RR rule. Furthermore, he is not polite, very hostile.>

    I don't see how most of these are reverts. If you're going to claim they're complex reverts to old versions, provide diffs for the version reverted to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:201.81.178.200 reported by User:Wimt (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Magnetic monopole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 201.81.178.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Comments

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CovenantD reported by User:GentlemanGhost (Result: 1 week)

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

    Comments
    Four reverts to this version within a 24-hour period (today). User has been warned before. This is one piece of an ongoing edit war with User:Asgardian, who is one revert shy of 4 reverts in a 24-hour period for this same article.

    Please provide diffs of the reverts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs now provided. Sorry, I misunderstood the instruction. --GentlemanGhost 02:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:72.209.67.107 reported by User:Patken4 on Eric Medlen.

    User keeps changing page to say person is alive, even though several media outlets state he has died. I have already reverted the page back twice and am concerned about breaking 3RR. Patken4 01:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs of the reverts, or post at WP:ANI if the user is engaging in disruption by inserting information which is provably false. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On a second look, this is simple vandalism. I'll warn the vandal, but reverting such vandal edits is not subject to the three-revert rule. You've got nothing to worry about. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WikiManiac64 reported by User:mckaysalisbury (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Naruto: Saikyou Ninja Daikesshu 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WikiManiac64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments

    Also, he has been ignoring warnings of "don't make this edit, see the talk page", but he has a tendency to ignore the talk page. McKay 07:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Imdanumber1 reported by User:NE2 (Result: 10 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on B Division (New York City Subway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Imdanumber1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    Imdanumber1 has taken to reverting all my changes to the article - not just the ones he disputes - to prevent me from using standard links and removing overlinking. --NE2 14:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The timestamps are off by a few hours, would you mind fixing them? John Reaves (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I get when I look in the history; presumably you want GMT stamps? How do I get those? --NE2 14:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, UTC (or are they the same?). I can tell it's within 24 hours regardless, so I'm blocking for 10 hours (first offense). John Reaves (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KazakhPol reported by User:TheColdTruth (Result: no violation)

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



    Comments: KazkahPol has a long history of 3RR and has been blocked more than 5 times. He is known for being in numerous edit wars, tag team reverts and uncivil behavior.

    • 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. Also, only two reverts were made in a 24-hour period, not 3. Nishkid64 23:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tr1ckydr1v3r reported by User:Dreaded Walrus (Result: Warning)

    Three-revert rule violation on Jack Thompson (attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views),. Tr1ckydr1v3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [78]
    Comments
    While there have only been three reverts on that particular article, user has also added uncited, unencyclopedic POV to History of E³ ([79]), with 3 reverts ([80], [81], [82]), and GameSpot ([83]), with 3 reverts ([84], [85],[86]). User does not seem willing to provide reasoning, as all edit summaries have been blank, despite other users using edit summaries explaining why the material is not suitable. --Dreaded Walrus 01:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has not violated 3RR, but warned for WP:BLP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Larry Dunn reported by User:The Behnam (Result: Page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template:Sassanid Empire infobox (edit | [[Talk:Template:Sassanid Empire infobox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Larry Dunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    This is a case of WP:GAME. We were both active in the final minutes of the 24hr period, but he waited until exactly 1 minute after the period to do his final revert. The Behnam 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page has already been protected by Sarah. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:217.235.234.61 reported by User:asams10 (Result: 24 hours each)

    Three-revert rule violation on Sturmgewehr 44 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 217.235.234.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [87]
    Comments
    Users reverted an edit of mine to his previous version. This was then reverted by another user. Since, this user has repeatedly ignored my warnings and left a sarcastic message to do something about it on his last revert.--Asams10 05:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some more information from the other side:
    - I changed the article and included the reason for my change in my edit summary; Asams10 OTOH never did so much as hinted at why he didn't like the change.
    - My request at his userpage to add his reason was blankly reverted as PA (what he called "sarcastic").
    - The other user's change was not the one Asams10 did.
    - Asams10 is lying about my last revert message: "So have you [violated 3RR], now what? Again, I have stated my reasons for the change, you haven't. If you have something to add beyond disrupting Wikipedia, feel free to do so."
    - Asams10 broke 3RR on this very article. Since he denied doing so in my /Talk, here they are:

    [88] [89] [90] [91] --217.235.234.61

    Please provide diffs of the four reverts. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Violations were:

    Both editors violated 3RR, 24 hours each. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Dreftymac reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Warning)

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


    Comments
    There are a number of other additions of unsourced information in the caption; if any others were in there previously, there would be additional reverts to report.

    4 is a pretty technical "revert", and seems to be more toward being an attempt to resolve the matter. It also doesn't appear to be contentious. Will warn the user to lay off the edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:James Nicol reported by User:SethTisue (Result: Blocked for 24h)

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

    Comments
    User is attempting to undo weeks (months?) of work on the article by multiple users by substituting various early versions of the article for the current version. Note all but the first of the reverts I've listed involving replacing the entire page. I have attempted to undo the damage myself but I have now reached the WP:3RR limit myself. Note that users User:Deor and User:CXII have also attempted to undo the damage.

    User:Blue Tie reported by William M. Connolley (Result: No violation page protected)

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


    No warning: has been warned before on his talk, and considers himself experienced [94]

    4 is not a revert that I can see, but all parties involved are cautioned to use discussion and if necessary dispute resolution rather than an edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Now I'm puzzled. #4 restores the same Pov-check template that #3 restored. Why isn't that a revert? William M. Connolley 08:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    <stupid>That would be my fault, the two are effectively the same.</stupid> Looks like the page is protected now anyway, so Blue Tie, consider that a lucky dodge and a warning. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've corrected the result following the discussion William M. Connolley 11:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seraphimblade, hello. I apparently did not understand the 3rr rule. I thought that the rule was that you should not revert against one person or one passage or concept. I did not realize that it applied to any point in the article and all editors. But I see the rule is very clear: "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." I will be more thoughtful in the future. But, I do not want to "skate by" the rules on a technicality. If I could have done so, I would self revert, but that is not open to me. So, I think I should be blocked. I have no problem with abiding by the rules and it seems right to me. My only defense is not much of one: I was ignorant! I do not want a pass on a technicality. I would expect the 24 hours to be up on 08:52 27 March 2007.
    However, before it is enacted, I also apologize here and on the talk page. I will also apologize to the specific individuals reverted above.
    One last note though. I do not believe that I was "warned" as described above. I was ordered to tag my changes in a certain way, which I did not agree with. That is not quite the same thing as a warning on 3rr, which would have been appreciated, particularly if it had caused me to understand the policy better!--Blue Tie 13:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You weren't warned: you don't need a warning, because you explicitly stated you considered yourself experienced in the context of reverting, and because you already have a 3RR warning on your talk page William M. Connolley 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your sentiments, but 3RR blocks are imposed to prevent and stop edit wars, not to punish people, so imposing a block two days later after the user has got the message, as you have, and after a timely block would have already expired, is not necessary. At most, you can voluntarily refrain for 24 hours from editing the specific page in question. Newyorkbrad 13:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:209.218.163.2 reported by User:Yakuman (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Paul McKenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.218.163.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Each revert listed is the end of a series of multiple partial reverts.

    User blocked 24 hours by Crazycomputers. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Replay7 reported by User:Kieff (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Paint (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Replay7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    User is trying to promote his image Image:Drawing_Replay.PNG on the article. The excuse given is "No need to use Windows Vista Paint as the first image. It's already on the page under "Versions"", which is clearly nonsense. The user is already aware of this rule. — Kieff | Talk 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours, attacks in addition to 3RR. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Khoikhoi reported by User:Yaanch (Result: No violation)

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

    Comments
    This administrator reverted Armenia eight times over a section and whether to use BC or BCE. Shouldn't an admin know better than that? I think so.. YaanchSpeak! 22:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious case of sockpuppetry. No violation of WP:3RR. KazakhPol 22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. Just because he was reverting edits from sockpuppets means he free to go? The sockpuppets are obviously one person. So what it all comes down to is 1 editor vs. 1 editor. If he was edit warring with (lets just say) User:Example, would he of been reprimanded because it wasn't sockpuppets? Khoikhoi should of gone to the talkpage.

    The sockpuppetry here rises to the level of obvious and blatant vandalism. No violation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. The sockpuppets were trying to add "legit" contributions. Even if it was an edit war, it was not obvious and blatant vandalism. Sockpuppty is not vandalism, its against policy. Just because vandalism and sockpupptry are both against policy doesn't mean sockpupptry equals vandalism. YaanchSpeak! 23:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The sockpuppets are operated by a banned user, User:Ararat arev. A banned user's contributions may be reverted on-sight, regardless of perceived validity, and this is not subject to the 3RR. This user isn't allowed to be editing in the first place. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Im sorry if i seem annoying, but how can one tell that the sockpuppets are of User:Ararat arev?YaanchSpeak! 23:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because he admitted it here and here. Khoikhoi 23:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions: "Reverting actions performed by banned users." Khoikhoi 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, i understand that completely. But have the sockpuppets been proven to be of User:Ararat arev?YaanchSpeak! 23:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, through IP and behavioral evidence, and the fact that he admitted it. Khoikhoi 23:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, ok. Its cool. My mistake. YaanchSpeak! 23:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KazakhPol reported by User:cs (Result: 24 hours each)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [103]
    • 1st revert 00:26: [104]
    • 2nd revert 00:37: [105]
    • 3rd revert 00:40: [106]
    • 4th revert 00:44: [107]
    • 5th revert 00:52: [108]
    • 6th revert 01:18: [109]
    • 7th revert 01:50 [110]
    Comments

    I am not a vandal as his rvv's indicate, User:KazakhPol keeps reverting my edits. He is also edit warring Andijan Massacre Each revert listed is the end of a series of multiple partial reverts.

    Blatant vandalism by Cs. He himself has reverted to his vandalized version of the page over eight times, each time using a deceptive edit summary to mask his reversion. He recently tried to have me blocked on Andijan massacre, reporting a false 3RR report under a sockpuppet. The report was ignored. If you look at his edit summaries on ETLO and East Turkestan Islamic Movement you will see he is knowingly removing categories and content inappropriately. KazakhPol 22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont have a sockpuppet. I kindly ask an administrator to check if I had any. I am not a vandal, all my edits fall within legitimate Wikipedia quidelinescs 22:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He is continuing to revert to his vandalized version using false edit summaries, such as "rewording" or "fixing" when he reverts. KazakhPol 22:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Both of you are engaged in a disruptive edit war, please take 24 hours to cool off and seek dispute resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KimDabelsteinPetersen reported by User:UBeR (Result: Page protected - no violation)

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


    Comments

    I'm sorry? These are two blocks of edits - i cut them in part so that the edit-summary describes each one - specifically because the subject is controversial. Is there some technicality in 3RR that i do not understand? --Kim D. Petersen 00:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page has been protected, which I was just about to do myself. Seek dispute resolution, please. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seraphimblade - could you please comment on the above? I know the page has been protected - but i'm in a state of confusion here - i stopped editing the moment i noticed the 3RR warning - and have been trying to get UBeR to describe exactly how i'm violating 3RR (on my talk page). A protection is all fine and well - but does not explain what technicality i've apparently violated ... --Kim D. Petersen 00:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have reverted six times a neutral page so that it fits your POV. This is 3RR, not 6RR. ~ UBeR 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I quit looking as soon as I saw the page protection (and was going to protect it myself due to the massive edit warring anyway). There's no need to block someone to prevent an edit war on a page that's already protected. If you'd like, though, I can have a closer look and tell you how I would have seen it on your talk. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do so - especially because UBeR is now escalating this to 6RR. And he doesn't seem to want to elaborate. --Kim D. Petersen 00:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've corrected this to no violation, based on Sb's responses on KBP's talk William M. Connolley 10:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ChrisO reported by User:Jaakobou (Result:no vio)

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


    Comments

    user has been warned allready for "taking the page hostage" [118] (after an AfD discussion - he nominated[119] - and voting on it had ended) and for multiple reverting [120] and also warned for (28 reverts/deteltions in past 14 days feb25 to mar11).

    • No 3RR vio: 1st revert is outside 24 hours; fifth is not a revert. Heimstern Läufer 05:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Heimstern Läufer, did you go over the 'comments' section??? don't make me lose belief in the wiki system on treating repeated offenders.

    Even if he is a repeat offender, he hasn't violated 3RR this time. If he hasn't violated 3RR, then there is no violation. Nishkid64 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [121], difference [122]
    • 1st revert: [123] 15:47, 25 March 2007
    • 2nd revert: [124] 16:04, 25 March 2007
    • 3rd revert: [125] 21:17, 25 March 2007
    • 4th revert: [126] 21:37, 25 March 2007


    Comments

    User has already been reported for 3RR events on this same article (Continent) 2 days ago [127], and was warned by administrator Nishkid64 [128], on March 23 as a result of that report. User Corticopia has been reported several times in the past, 2 of them leading to edit blocks for this account, on January and February 2007.

    Both violated 3RR, 24 hours each. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deathrocker reported by User:Ceoil

    User:Deathrocker is currently on 3rr probation, which he has just violated on Heavy metal music. Diffs: one, two. Personal attacks included in edit summarys. Editor was recently blocked for similar behaviour on the same page. Ceoil 11:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed simple vandalism by user:Ceoil who purposly attacked my edits to the article[129], blanking information which has seven sources, including ones from Allmusic.com and Rolling Stone. Ceoil stalked me to this article and defaced my work, because he has a grudge against me, as I corrected templates on some images he uploaded a few weeks back. (for example) I find his obsesive behaviour in regards to sitting around refreshing my contributions page every minute of the day, rather worrying... since leaving this message, Ceoil has now followed me to other users pages I left a message on. Scary. - Deathrocker 11:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My edits to the article predate his template corrections. Re:"stalked me", the user has now made four WP:PA in the last half hour. Deathrocker's habit is to go through the log files of users he has a content dispute with, and dispute templates. Ceoil 11:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a simple case of 3RR... I suggest talking it to WP:ANI. --Deskana (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:mrholybrain 3RR violation

    User:mrholybrain has maliciously reverted edits made to the user page of this computer on more than three occasions this morning, although it has been established here that he has absolutely no right whatsoever to interfere with other people's talk pages. He is out of control, please help. 163.167.129.124 10:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you do not follow the given format, it is unlikely that your report will be actioned upon.

    User:mrholybrain reported by User:163.167.129.124 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on User talk:163.167.129.124 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:163.167.129.124|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). mrholybrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    163.167.129.124 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP does not listen to any message I leave on his talk page, preferring simply blanking it to engaging in rational debate. He has not cited any policy to back up his talk page blanking. He refuses to listen to any messages that criticize him. mrholybrain's talk 12:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculous. Please see here and here. I do not wish to engage any further with this user, he is harassing me and clearly in breach of the 3RR.

    163.167.129.124 12:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you will look here, you will see the reasons I gave for reverting the talk page. He is just giving the arguments of a few editors. I have cited policies and guidelines; he has not. mrholybrain's talk 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Artaxiad reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: Page protected)

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

    Artaxiad has violated the 1RR injunction issued in the ArbCom case he is a party to [130] by making 2 reverts in less than 24 hrs.


    Comments

    Page already protected by Azatoth. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but are users allowed to violate the injunction? Grandmaster 07:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. But we block for prevention, not to punish. If the edit war has already been stopped by protection, there's no need to block as well. The ArbCom will ultimately deal with violations. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks. Grandmaster 07:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gun Powder Ma reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result:24h each)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [131] 13:57, 26 March 2007
    • 1st revert: [132] 14:04, 26 March 2007
    • 2nd revert: [133] 14:18, 26 March 2007
    • 3rd revert: [134] 15:25, 26 March 2007
    • 4th revert: [135] 16:10, 26 March 2007
    • 5th revert: [136]
    Comments

    User Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) failed to provided his sources for the first five edits, and insisted his right about changing, plus he had changed several of the sourced matarial with added commentaries, and I reverted it. The user mentioned here had violated the 3RR rule. And had just made his personal attack on the talk page [137] Eiorgiomugini 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24h for Gun Powder for breaking 3RR and personal attacks. The same for Eiorgio for yet another 3RR violation. Please try to play by the rules, even if the others don't. Thanks. yandman 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Marskell reported by User:Coppertwig (Result:)

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

    • 1st revert: 22:04 25 March 2007
      • Deleted, with edit summary "and more stupidity" the following text: "Details on votes between Yes and No are especially welcome" which had been added by Pmanderson at 19:52 25 March 2007 (12 minutes earlier).
    • 2nd revert: 22:06 25 March
      • Deleted "WP:ATT is not everywhere verbally identical with its sources. Its supporters assert it makes no changes in policy, but is better phrased." which had been added by user Pmanderson at 15:05 (about 7 hours earlier).
    • 3rd revert: 15:58 26 March
      • Deleted "or "conditional yes"" which was added by ArmedBlowfish at 18:42 25 March (about 21 hours earlier).
    • 4th revert: 18:08 26 March
      • Restored the phrase "Do you agree in principle..." which is highly contentious on the talk page and has been deleted and re-restored many times by various users; it had just been deleted by DennyColt at 17:55 26 March, 13 minutes earlier.
    • 5th revert: 18:15 26 March
      • Again restored the phrase "Do you agree in principle..."


    A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

    -->

    Comments

    It's important that this policy poll development page not be overly dominated by any one user. --Coppertwig 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I welcome the feedback. Indeed, policy development shouldn't be highjacked by one user. Marskell 20:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear about one thing I did respond to the "warning," (or was that trolling?) here. Marskell 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks like collaborative editing to me. I'm not seeing the reverts. Jayjg (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, on last I was not reverting Denny. I was responding quickly to his concerns. Indeed, he was agreeable here. Marskell 20:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate SlimVirgin's impartiality in recusing here (i.e. merely commenting). SlimVirgin is not a disinterested party here, having reverted (restored) the same "agree in principle" wording that Marskell twice restored: [138]
    • For the 5th revert, I think I gave a diff of two edits by the same user. If you look at the first of the two, in which the words "in principle" were actually restored, 18:11 26 March, the edit summary is "no, not better. plz stop for one minute", which doesn't sound to me like the sort of edit summary one usually puts when in agreement with the person whose change in wording one is reverting for a second time, as Marskell alleges. --Coppertwig 21:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In situations such as this, it's common for wording to be added and removed as different users experiment with various combinations. This might technically mean that these individuals are "reverting" certain elements to earlier states, but that isn't tantamount to edit-warring (which is what the 3RR is intended to prevent). People (including me, as I've been active on that page) should be able to contribute in good faith without worrying about being busted on a technicality. This report may be well-intentioned, but it definitely isn't justified. I urge an uninvolved admin to dismiss it. —David Levy 21:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a mere technicality. If others are being careful not to violate 3RR, then those who do are enjoying an unfair amount of control over the page. Experimenting with combinations can be carried out on the talk page. --Coppertwig 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a mere technicality, and no one should have to worry about technically violating a rule that was never intended to apply to a particular situation. The spirit of the 3RR is violated when someone persistently edit-wars, and that isn't what Marskell has done. Furthermore, I don't know what outcome you're expecting. A block? Blocks are not punitive. They're used to halt disruptive or otherwise harmful behavior, and Marskell is engaged in none. —David Levy 21:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why thank you David. And you'd actually have to look hard to find the technicality in this case. Two of the edits were actually deliberately intended to address others concerns, not revert them. With Denny, it was maintenance: he was inserting commentary into the questions. Marskell 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not clear what the good intentions were. Coppertwig has been posting about precious little else but ATT for days on various pages, has opened up disputes about tags, about protection, about the truth issue, about the other policy pages, about notifications, about the "in principle" question, about reverting, and has now reported two very good editors for 3RR. The result is that a lot of sensible people are staying away from those pages, when it's input from sensible people we need. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    CopperTwig asked me to comment here. My initial edit on the polll page was honestly what seemed (naively I guess) an attempt to just streamline and "get it done". When my edits were refactored really by Marskell (not really reverted) as he showed in the diff above I was agreeable with it and I still am, I didn't consider it an aggressive revert or I might have... pursued it further. Like I told him on the talk page: ok, works for me. FWIW, I don't care for in principle and prefer cut and dried situations, and don't care for the in principle bit, but I am fine with the inclusion of the special note (that is what compromise and teamwork is all about). I wouldn't block for 3rr or even warn here, myself... - Denny 22:14, 26 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
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=118111999"