Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Fys (talk | contribs)
14,706 edits
→‎[[User:Hale-Byrne]]: add ref to another edit.
KPbIC (talk | contribs)
1,149 edits
Line 583: Line 583:


'''Comments:''' User has on four occasions removed the same paragraph of sourced information. He has accepted some minor changes that are not in that paragraph and so the previous version is not exactly the same as the version reverted to. Please note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Boothroyd&diff=prev&oldid=50906272 this edit], made in the middle of his edits to this page, which is to my biographical article.
'''Comments:''' User has on four occasions removed the same paragraph of sourced information. He has accepted some minor changes that are not in that paragraph and so the previous version is not exactly the same as the version reverted to. Please note [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Boothroyd&diff=prev&oldid=50906272 this edit], made in the middle of his edits to this page, which is to my biographical article.

===[[User:Kuban kazak]]===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Kiev Metro}}. {{3RRV|Kuban_kazak}}:

* [[User:Kuban kazak]] was blocked for 3RR violation on this article on 8 March 2006
* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiev_Metro&diff=43013466&oldid=43012064 19:54, 9 March 2006]
* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiev_Metro&diff=43018144&oldid=43015842 20:25, 9 March 2006]
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiev_Metro&diff=50891426&oldid=50673714 14:20, 30 April 2006]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiev_Metro&diff=50919339&oldid=50916193 18:27, 30 April 2006]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiev_Metro&diff=50924193&oldid=50923624 19:01, 30 April 2006]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiev_Metro&diff=50927019&oldid=50926321 19:21, 30 April 2006]
Reported by: [[User:KPbIC|KPbIC]] (134.84.etc) 19:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments:'''
After the collapse of USSR, Soviet symbols and attributes were partially removed from [[Kiev Metro]]. [[User:Kuban kazak]] is pushing his opinion that it "created a '''conflict''' with the original architectural composition", instead of a neutral statement that it "'''altered''' the original architectural composition".


== Report new violation ==
== Report new violation ==

Revision as of 20:02, 30 April 2006

    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

    User:infinity0

    Three revert rule violation on Socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). infinity0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: -- Vision Thing -- 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Comments: 4th revert happened 24 hours and 55 minutes after first revert, but this user already broke 3RR 3 times (1 2 3) in last 3 months and I think he delayed last revert on purpose to avoid breaking 3RR technically. -- Vision Thing -- 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vision Thing seems to have a thing against me. In my defence, I did NOT violate 3RR, and Vision Thing's (spam) edits were reverted by other users too. -- infinity0 19:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Infinity0: it is best to show diffs containing the reverts Vision Thing did -- your response will have more weight in you handle it this way. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, here are Vision Thing's insertion and reinsertion of links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. -- infinity0 20:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gephart

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

    Reported by: Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

      • I dont exactly know if users have the option to defend themselves or were they would do it, so I, Gephart, will do it right here (if this is not the place, please direct to the appropriate area or let me know i have not chance). Although i have been using wikipedia for a little under a year, i can honestly say i never knew about the 3RR (i know for the future). I guess i have never had any trouble with other users up until today. Calgacus continued to revert what i had done without being willing to discuss the picture in question. And, as i noticed above, he posted another 3RR violation, stating "the persons unwillingness to discuss," so i know he can imagine the frustration i was feeling. I posted twice on the article talk page and once on his user page, but got no direct answer to the simple questions i asked him; he continually beat around the bush to put it. I know i violated policy is "declaring an edit war" in my last post, put that simply came out of frustration, and my intents were never genuine. Anyways, that is my side of the story.--Gephart 00:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this edit to your own user page is quite ridiculous, shocking and disgraceful, containing falsehoods such as "Calgacus will start a mini-revert war" (actually, you, as you admit here, started it), "he intentionally ignores talk pages" (I actually responded to all your comments all the talk page) and slander "cause you to violate the 3RR rule" (you yourself did this), "intentionally" (who could you know?). I reported you here because I like to edit articles and concentrate on content, so I report all 3RRs I come across. The latter edit has discredited your attempt to convince of your own good faith. I remind you to consult WP:Assume good faith, and very much hope you don't need a block to reform your character. Thanks. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JedRothwell

    Three revert rule violation on Cold fusion controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JedRothwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: KillerChihuahua?!? 14:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Note that this is the second time that Jed has gone over 3RR and he was again warned before his 4th revert: [7]. JoshuaZ 15:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h. Note that I have some history over this article, though it was a long time ago, so feel free to review this block if required William M. Connolley 15:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.144.93.38

    Three revert rule violation on April 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.144.93.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [8]
    • 1st revert: [9]
    • 2nd revert: [10]
    • 3th revert: [11]
    • 4th revert: [12]
    • 5th revert: [13]

    Reported by: Asbl 15:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: 5th revert came after I put a warning on the anon's talk page.

    8h. Sorry I forgot to note that earlier William M. Connolley 22:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Manojlo

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
    • 1st revert: [14]
    • 2nd revert: [15]
    • 3rd revert: [16]
    • 4th revert:[17]
    • 5th revert: [18]
    • 6th revert: [19]


    Reported by: Ilir pz 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: If looked at Special:Contributions/Manojlo user continues to revert continuously, hiding behind the claim that "minor parts" are edited, and misleads with the Comments, but in fact he is trying to impose his POV. I put several test warnings to him, but he just kept removing them from his talk page. Action is appreciated. Thank you, Ilir pz 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GODDESSY

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

    Comment 1-3 were the same reversion, 4 was removal of deletion tag, 5 was a partial reversion back to original version. Pretty basic edit war.--Isotope23 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps off topic, but the user seems to have WP:OWN issues about the article.--Isotope23 21:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    24h, for 3RR and self-biog William M. Connolley 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:207.81.122.3

    Three revert rule violation on Squamish, British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.81.122.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: TeaDrinker 00:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This seems to all be one user, but a very persistant one. He has been doing these reverts for months. He has been warned on multiple accounts previously (note that he removes warnings from talk pages), and uses many accounts.

    User:Al-Andalus

    Three revert rule violation on Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Demographics of Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Al-Andalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: OneEuropeanHeart 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: User has been warned four times [36] [37] [38] [39] by three different users, refusing to discuss the issue or change his behavior. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:211.225.70.220

    Three revert rule violation on Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 211.225.70.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Endroit 12:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This user keeps reverting against consensus, to variations of East Sea (instead of Sea of Japan). A warning has been placed on the user page after the 6th revert.--Endroit 13:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to have got bored and gone off. Warned. William M. Connolley 19:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Greier

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

    Reported by: Telex 13:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    But User:Greier is one more time challanged by you Telex. You don't speak with him on talk page first. You just report him here. --Steaua 18:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not my job to babysit him - how many users is that ludicrous propaganda of his being reverted by? He knows he oughtn't continue reverting, but he does it anyway. Quite evidently (from his user talk page), many users have tried to speak with him, alas, in vain. Telex 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen you try to talk with Greier...--Steaua 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen you just reverting his work. If you complain of something go to the talk page first. This is Wikipedia...--Steaua 18:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit summary - after my hard work was called bullshit, he hurt my feelings. Telex 18:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, unless you're Node I don't see why you're so upset and why your feelings are hurted. That's really bulshit what you have written there. That work deserve immediatelly reverted. --Steaua 18:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    In fact, Telex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was also on Administrator's noticeboard [43] warned not to revert and to make compromise on talk page first. --Steaua 13:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Steaua for support. I know Romanians on wikipedia are on a constant... let`s call it stress, from a combined pack of Greeks, Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Hungarians, Ukrainians.... They all have theyr own (apparentelly contrasting) ideas on what Romanian/Aromanian/Vlach people mean, from where Romanian/Aromanians/Vlach camed from, on what Romanians/"Vlach" language means... About your propose to block me... haa hahahaha hahah haaaa haha... Greier 18:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    2006-04-28 18:54:09 Mikkalai blocked "Greier (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR acc. to report) which seems fair enough William M. Connolley 18:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A russian coallition of force...russian blocking, just fine...--Steaua 19:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:137.186.145.102

    Three revert rule violation on User talk:137.186.145.102. 137.186.145.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    [48]

    Reported by: File:CcoacrestB.PNG Ardenn 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: He violates etiquette about the talk page. File:CcoacrestB.PNG Ardenn 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Getting into edit wars on peoples own talk pages is unproductive and offensive. William M. Connolley 18:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. I've already spoken with Ardenn about how ridiculous it is to consider as vandalism a user's removal of his obviously too large signature from their talk page (the image in Ardenn's current signature is much smaller that the one he left on the talk page in question), as he left a message about vandalism over this issue prior to this report of a 3RR violation. I am absolutely certain that Ardenn understands that what he is arguing over is exceedingly unimportant, and yet he insists on making an issue out of it.  OZLAWYER  talk  20:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DevoutOne

    Three revert rule violation on Pope Benedict XVI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DevoutOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reported by: Dominick (TALK) 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Looks like this account was created only to insert links to Pope Benedict XVI in the article. I posted on talk, he replied with a template. May be a sockpuppet.

    Of the pope? :-))) In that case, only 1h for now as a gentle reminder that the rules can be enforced William M. Connolley 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

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

    Reported by: —Khoikhoi 23:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    The only previous time I was blocked the admin apoligized later [49]. In this case however I will admit I broke the 3RR as I forgot I rv a couple of times yesterday and could not revert myself as I had already been reverted. I apoligize.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No action now. Warned. `'mikka (t) 01:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:154.20.148.186

    Three revert rule violation on Werner_Herzog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 154.20.148.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Stephan Schulz 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 48h. `'mikka (t) 01:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:


    User:Daveinaustin

    Three revert rule violation on Ann Coulter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Daveinaustin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • User is repeatedly adding POV to the article and removing legitimate text, though he refuses to cite sources (not that that's relevant when investigating 3RR)
    • His submissions have been reverted by three separate editors.
    • User has been sufficiently warned, yet refuses to stop.
    Are these really reverts? They look like insertions of different POV text William M. Connolley 08:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just about to say the same thing. Ami, can you show where he has reverted to text you had deleted, or repeatedly inserted something? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I suppose I can't. I've only reverted one of his edits, and then one of the article's main contributors (of which I'm not) asked me to do something about him as he had refused to stop inserting POV into the article. Looking at the history it seemed to be 3RR, so I listed him here. I guess I should have looked more closely. He seems to have either given up now or gone to bed, so I guess there's no reason to take any action. If the problem persists, hopefully they'll open up an RfC--I was just trying to find a quick and temporary solution to a problem that I shouldn't have gotten involved with in the first place. Sorry for taking your time. AmiDaniel (Talk) 18:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gene Nygaard

    3RR violation on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gene Nygaard has reverted my archiving of the talk page four times in 90 minutes, part of a pattern of disruption from him that has been going on there for days. He has been editing for some time and is familiar with the 3RR policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Um. It looks like no-one (including me) wants to step into your edit war with GN. You both know whats-what. You (both) shouldn't be edit warring over archiving a talk page. For what its worth, my preference is to archive, unless people object, in which case it can be left for a week or a month or whatever William M. Connolley 22:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    William, are you saying it's okay for him to violate 3RR because it's a talk page? If so, he'll simply keep on doing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Violating 3RR to scuttle the archiving of a page is not just lame, but disruptive. There's no legitimate excuse. Blocked for 24 hr for the 3RR vio. Any further disruption when the block expires will earn him another 24. FeloniousMonk 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like SV has also violated 3RR (see below) and in this case seems to have archived discussion less than a day old. Given my experience of her removing comment she doesn't like, I am, unfortunately, not surprised. We should expect evenhandedness in applying 3RR. In fact I'll go further and say admins who violate policy should be dealt with more firmly than ordinary users. Mccready 05:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Sorry Jay, I don't well know that at all. In any case her comments below appear to be a mea culpa. I don't suppose you'd consider apologising to me? May I remind you to be civil and not make illogical accusations? Mccready 06:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Her self-block goes above and beyond the call of duty, and just serves to highlight her acute sense of responsibility, justice and fairplay. I'd recommend not putting words in her mouth, especially considering the amount you have been harassing her. I don't suppose you'd consider desiting from your continued violations of WP:CIVIL? Jayjg (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jidan

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

    Reported by: ManiF 12:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: User:Jidan has been previously blocked for 3RR, on three occasions during the last six weeks. --ManiF 12:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    They aren't all reverts. Prodego talk 14:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mean to intrude, but there is a theoretical 3RR violation (depending on how nitpicky the admin wants to be). If you check all diffs, you'll notice that he's removed the link Persians at least five times (so we have four reverts). According to the policy, partial reverts count as well. Telex 14:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are six reverts there. As per WP:3RR, not all the reverts have to be the same, any undoing of another editor's work counts as a revert. --ManiF 14:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's three straight forward reverts, and then two more edits to accomplish the same thing (change to an ethnicity of Arab). Looks like a straight forward attempt at wikilawyering to me, and he should know better.

    Wikibofh(talk) 14:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hogeye

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

    Reported by: -- infinity0 17:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This is the user's first group of edits since being banned for a month for personal attacks and disruptive editing.

    There's eight now (not counting the sockpuppet edit mentioned below); for easy viewing: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. The user also made other changes to the article that were reverted, but those ones were all around the same things. Four of the reversions to his edits were by myself, and I'd rather avoid making any more. Sarge Baldy 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There's another one by an anon which is most likely Hogeye at [59]. Fightindaman 20:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, OK, this is getting silly. Errm... 48h? William M. Connolley 22:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wolfkeeper

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

    Reported by: Dionyseus 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: I attemped mediation so that someone can explain to him why you cannot include unsourced and unfounded claims in the article, and for a full day the Elo_rating_system article was at peace, but apparently he has become restless because he began reverting my edits again, and worse he calls my edits vandalism, displaying lack of faith on me as an editor WP: Assume Good Faith. Dionyseus 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Furthermore he is now posting on my userpage, calling me names and insulting me, and deleted my earlier attempts to mediate with him on his userpage. Dionyseus 06:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    12h for first offence William M. Connolley 07:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Metb82

    Three revert rule violation on Abdullah Öcalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Metb82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reported by: —Khoikhoi 03:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:Lemuel Gulliver

    Three revert rule violation on 2003 invasion of Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lemuel_Gulliver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Merecat 05:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: These editor is clearly aware of what he is doing. His edit summaries state:

    • "Such an assertion needs to be made in the body of the text, attributed and explained. Not stated so baldly"
    • "This is another way it could be done"
    • "Attributed version. The simplest solution is not to include it"
    • "Quotes alone is another option"
    • He was warned on his talk page here as well as with edit summary which stated:

    "rv / v Gulliver - You have reverted this 3 times already. The last 2 times were vandalism. Stop now or face 3RR and vandal report"

    Here are the real diffs: revert 1, partial revert 1, attempted compromise 1, attempted compromise 2, attempted compromise 3. At that point I left the article for others to worry about. Incidentally, I don't actually like those compromises. As I argued, I believe it is best to make such a controversial assertion ("part of the War on Terrorism") in the body of the text, where it can be attributed and explained.
    It is also worth noting that Merecat is refusing to enter discussion on the matter, by deleting comments on his talk page. He has also misused vandalism templates and been warned for it. He has also reverted the article three times and risks breaking the 3RR. — Gulliver ✉ 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gulliver's knowledge of procedure is sufficient that he knew enough to come looking for this page. With such knowledge, he's certain to know that the place to dialog is the article talk page, not by leaving insults on my talk page. Please review the article talk page see that Gulliver is part of a small group of POV warriors, determined to delete this category from the article. Merecat 05:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Part of a small group of POV warriors"? Please keep conspiracy paranoia off this page. I happened across the article, noticed unattributed POV, and tried to remedy it in various ways. — Gulliver ✉ 06:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, how about "one of a number of POV reverters"? Merecat 06:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "A Wikipedian implementing NPOV policy as usual" is fine. In any case, there is no 3RR violation, and so I won't entertain you further by engaging you in unnecessary debate. The admins who manage this page have better things to read. — Gulliver ✉ 06:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:SlimVirgin

    Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    WP should be about even-handedness not sysops supporting each other without adequate research.

    Reported by: Mccready 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Jay am I wrong that she arhived the page 4 times within 24 hours? I don't understand what you mean by saying she reverted herself. I'm always happy to learn. Mccready 06:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I hadn't reverted four times when I reported Gene Nygaard. After he was blocked (or around the same time; I forget the sequence exactly), I went back to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and I restored the archiving that Gene had reverted, without realizing that I was still within the 24 hour period. As soon as I realized, I reverted myself. Normally, that's enough to avoid a block for 3RR. However, as an admin, I should have been more careful, and as someone who had just reported someone else for 3RR, I should have been more careful still, so I'm going to block myself now for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears noble Slim and I assume good faith, but to make it more lifelike would you agree that Gene should be able to nominate (at any time within the next 30 days) a time for you to go offline for 24 hours from the time of his nomination? Mccready 07:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL! Jayjg (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, what a solution Mcready, I can obviously see how it relates to your complaint.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's keep this in perspective. SV was trying to archive a talk page that contained nothing more than fruitless and disruptive agitation from a chronic malcontent. Gene Nygaard's opposition to the archiving was nothing more than insisting on yet further disruption. SV was in the right to archive and Gene Nygaard was in the wrong to repeatedly revert it. In responding to Gene Nygaard's unwarranted reversions, SV's actions did not rise to the level of a block for 3RR, while Gene's certainly did. I'm fine with SV being unblocked, but not with Gene Nygaard. FeloniousMonk 15:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lemuel Gulliver

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

    Reported by: anon Comments:

    Sorry, but it has to be more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. In this case, only 3 of the reverts are. —Khoikhoi 06:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You wouldn't happen to be a sockpuppet, would you? Two false accusations of 3RR violation in such a short space of time! As Khoikhoi correctly notes, the first revert was not within 24 hours (it was a fortnight ago!). The edit marked as the fourth revert was an attempt at compromise. Two reverts do not a 3RR violation make. Please do not flood this page with bogus reports. — Gulliver ✉ 06:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Gnetwerker

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

    Reported by: Wzhao553 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User continues to insert two poorly referenced sections ("Popular terminology" and "Academic terminology") and to relabel another section on Origins as my personal essay on Origins. Other editors have called for the deleted sections to go, e.g.:

    If the claim that "Postcolonialists and Neomarxists have argued that the alleged commodity fetishism of Asians arises in a similar manner." can't be cited, the whole section needs to go. Gazpacho 17:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried to explain my edits several times, explaining why the referenced "Origins" section should replace the "Popular terminology" and "Academic terminology" sections, but user refuses to listen, accusing me of promoting a personal agenda. The extreme irony in this situation is that I was the one who wrote 75% of the two unsourced sections, and now I want to replace my own unsourced work with sourced work. The relevant discussion can be found here:

    Talk:Asian_fetish#Original_Research_in_this_article

    User also has a history of violating WP:OWN, not to mention m:MPOV. More to the point, he continues to believe that, as an Asian American, I am somehow always writing with a POV and that I am intellectually incapable of striving for NPOV, and that he has become the "unofficial mediator" of the article. I have tried to reason and to assume good faith, but he refuses to reason. Personally, I think that that is somewhat racist, but that's my personal opinion. Cheers, Wzhao553 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wzhao553

    Three revert rule violation on Asian fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wzhao553 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [61]
    • 1st revert: [62] - 17:36, April 29, 2006
    • 2nd revert: [63] - 22:53, April 29, 2006
    • 3rd revert: [64] - 23:06, April 29, 2006
    • 4th revert: [65] - 00:49, April 30, 2006

    Reported by: Gnetwerker 09:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: After a long period of stability on a controversial topic, User:Wzhao553, who has proclaimed that he edits "with an Asian American POV", has inserted a mjor section of original research. While this has reluctantly been retained for discussion, Wzhao wishes for it to dominate the article, and consistently reverts to his version of the article, despite edits aiming to preserve his opinion while maintaining a balance in the article. The basline version includes his edit, but not as the sole purpose of the article, yet he consistently reverts. -- Gnetwerker 09:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:125.172.23.237

    Three revert rule violation on Developed country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 125.172.23.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Deiaemeth 09:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Keeps removing South Korea from the article, even though other users (including me) have reinstated them back. Keeps claiming that he is reverting vandalism. Deiaemeth 09:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24h Will (E@) T 16:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hale-Byrne

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

    Reported by: David | Talk 16:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: User has on four occasions removed the same paragraph of sourced information. He has accepted some minor changes that are not in that paragraph and so the previous version is not exactly the same as the version reverted to. Please note this edit, made in the middle of his edits to this page, which is to my biographical article.

    User:Kuban kazak

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

    Reported by: KPbIC (134.84.etc) 19:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: After the collapse of USSR, Soviet symbols and attributes were partially removed from Kiev Metro. User:Kuban kazak is pushing his opinion that it "created a conflict with the original architectural composition", instead of a neutral statement that it "altered the original architectural composition".

    Report new violation

    Place new reports ABOVE this header, using the template below. Do not edit the template itself. See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get the quickest responses. From the article's History page, use diffs (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted. 


    
===[[User:USERNAME]]===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{3RRV|USER_NAME}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

* Previous version reverted to: [Link Time] <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

Reported by: ~~~~

'''Comments:'''


<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=50932547"