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
Custerwest (talk | contribs)
419 edits
Custerwest (talk | contribs)
419 edits
Line 996: Line 996:
...has been undergoing heavy editting, and after I changed POV wording from "murdered" to "killed" per much wiki discussion, and trying to use the talk page to explain the issue, [[User:Custerwest]] reverted the edit a third time. This user is new, and I've tried to warn against this action, to no avail. Some outside help would be great. [[User:Murderbike|Murderbike]] 00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
...has been undergoing heavy editting, and after I changed POV wording from "murdered" to "killed" per much wiki discussion, and trying to use the talk page to explain the issue, [[User:Custerwest]] reverted the edit a third time. This user is new, and I've tried to warn against this action, to no avail. Some outside help would be great. [[User:Murderbike|Murderbike]] 00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


===[[User:Custerwest]] reported by [[User:Murderbike]] (Result:)===


*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
[[Battle of Washita River|Battle of Washita River]]. {{3RRV|Custerwest}}: Time reported: 00:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
-->


== Example ==
== Example ==

Revision as of 00:27, 30 June 2007

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.

    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:Domer48 reported by User:Setanta747 (Result:)

    Emma Groves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't warned the guy, but I think he's seasoned enough as an editor to be aware of the guidelines. I made an edit in good faith, to remove POV from an article, after which he accused me of being a POV editor. To be fair to him, he did try to offer dialogue, of a sort, on the article talk page, which I answered in kind.

    (1st revert) (diff from my initial copyedit

    Thank you. --Mal 09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Whats the difference between restoring and reverting information on an article? Is that the same as replacing the information? Regards --Domer48 10:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You tried to set me up for a 3RR but check! I was replacing vandlism by you, based on no conclusion to discussion! Around just long enough to cop on to you! I did not accuse you of being a PoV editor, I said you were! --Domer48 10:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So what.. you're adding insult to injury now? You didn't "cop on" to anything, by the way. The reasons for my edits were sound, and I explained them to you on the discussion page.
    This isn't a game - its an encyclopedia. --Mal 10:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chill Dormer. 3RR is a very hard rap to beat as it tends to be automatic if the reverts add up. I don't think the nature of the reverts are of much concern; and vandalism is tricky - I got caught in similar circumstances where I assumed I had a vandalism case but it turned out he was enforcing policy. I would call for no action here on the basis that you didn't realise that reverting what you thought was vandalism could be construed as 3RR. In the circumstances the lack of any warning is a serious issue; the warning requirement is precisely to prevent cases like this where you accidentally breach 3RR. I suggest you be more careful in future but a block isn't justified in this case. I would ask Mal/Setanta as a Veteran Editor to withdraw as a gesture of good faith to a relative newcomer. (Sarah777 10:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Sarah I'm afraid I must decline - particularly after Domer's last paragraph here. What a closing admin decides to do is another matter, but I definately felt like it needed to be taken to another forum, as Domer was refusing to listen to me. I have to say that I also never got a second chance when two or three like-minded editors basically ganged up on me with one article at a time when I was barely aware of any 3RR policy either. So I'll leave it up to what ever admin decides to look at it. --Mal 10:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hang on here a minute, User:Setanta747, suggests that they restored the article, that is a revert. Anyone can check the history on the article page. Regards--Domer48 11:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dormer, blame my technical incompetence but I can't trace the reverts - on either side. maybe get someone more proficient to look at it? (Sarah777 11:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    OK Mal, so maybe it has happened to us all; we live and learn. But from your comments you appear to have thought your 3RR event was unfair (as I did in my case). That isn't a reason for doling out the same medicine to another newcomer - the opposite surely? I know one thing I learned was that I'd make sure to give very clear warnings before reporting (as the record will show). Though I concede warnings are not very effective most of the time; still - they should be given. (Sarah777 11:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Re: "That isn't a reason for doling out the same medicine to another newcomer - the opposite surely?" Try not to put words into my mouth Sarah. --Mal 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I've dumped the entire log so we can look at it; is does, on the surface, appear that Dormer may have a point - it looks rather like four reverts. Mal, perhaps some explanation as to why think you didn't do 4 reverts would be helpful? I assume it is the 24-hour rule? Regards (Sarah777 11:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    1. (cur) (last) 10:10, June 23, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,572 bytes) (Inserted information removed prior to discussion conclusion. Rational POV motivated!)
    2. (cur) (last) 09:57, June 23, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (article restored to NPOV version: Please do not revert this again - I have explained my rationale.)
    3. (cur) (last) 09:07, June 23, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,542 bytes) (rv as per previous)
    4. (cur) (last) 01:23, June 23, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (Restored article to NPOV version. Domer48: watch your WP:NPA please.)
    5. (cur) (last) 08:44, June 22, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,542 bytes) (Rv Restored the information removed by POV editor)
    6. (cur) (last) 01:46, June 22, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (reverted article to a less-POV and more encyclopediac version)
    7. (cur) (last) 13:12, June 21, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,542 bytes) (Added page numbers removed POV tags from reference)
    8. (cur) (last) 08:41, June 21, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,573 bytes) (Replaced information which was removed because of POV of an Editor)
    9. (cur) (last) 08:39, June 21, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (4,713 bytes) (Replaced information which was removed because of POV of an Editor)
    10. (cur) (last) 08:07, June 21, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (re-added source by Vintagekits)
    11. (cur) (last) 08:05, June 21, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,645 bytes) (rv to non-POV version: Also - please do not remove the tags I added. There were several edits I made that were undone wholescale with no consideration for merit on individual basis.)
    I see three reverts. One more and Domer gets blocked. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reginmund reported by User:Maurauth (Result:Both parties agreed to discuss)

    Two violations, not sure how to report so I've pasted two templates.

    Iron Maiden (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Iron maiden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Regimund account created on June 7, 2007. Has no 3RR warning either. Evilclown93(talk) 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Clerk note: Reginmund has 7 reverts, but Maurauth has 6. This is an edit war which seems to have ceased. Evilclown93(talk) 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Clerk note: Maurath has had 2 blocks for editwarring, one block for incivility (April-May 2007), and he agreed to abide by 1RR when unblocked in May. I suggest some sort of block for Maurath and a warning for Reginmund. Evilclown93(talk) 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agreed to 1RR with the one user on the issue that I was warring about. I have 6 reverts over a long period of time, not 24 hours, I was discussing it but he kept reverting. Also, see [[1]] for discussion and list of attempted resolutions on my part. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 21:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Matt57 reported by IP Address (Result:No block)

    Islam in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Matt57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor reverted 5 times inserting descriptions of a non-Muslim organization giving it more attention than any Muslim organization receives in the same article. He argues that its removal is vandalism but it is clear that this is a content dispute over undue weight. First he argued that the IP's were the sockpuppet of one editor, then apparently changed his mind and argued that they are the sockpuppet of another editor, and both allegations come without any proof. 140.113.134.33 20:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    These are block evading sock puppets of either His excellency (talk · contribs · block log) (more suspected) or Kirbytime (talk · contribs · block log). Reverting edits of users who try to evade blocks is not against policy. As you can see, he comes back with a new IP every time, proabbly using anonymous browsing to evade the blocks. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators should note that this user provides no proof for this accusation, nor have either of those two users ever edited the article in question. 217.232.177.205 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is coming back with a new IP every time. Here are some of the IPs he has used (this is Hix Excellency for sure): 86.74.6.82, 88.198.148.74, 84.151.168.136, 83.189.77.121 and now 217.232.177.205. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This destructive permabanned editor has recently forced admins to semi-protect Apostasy, Apostasy in Islam, Ibn Khaldun, and Jihad Watch. Something should be done to block this person permanently. Arrow740 21:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ** Will appreciate other admins opinion on this. At first hand it seems to be rv of vandalism, but I may be mistaken. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Its deletion of sourced material by an anonymous IP switching user, an obvious block evading sock puppet. Reverting edits of blocked sock puppets doesnt count for 3RR. If the question is whether this is user is a sock puppet, the answer is a confirmed yes because he comes back with a new IP every time. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also confirmed open proxies for 86.74.6.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 88.198.148.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.151.168.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 83.189.77.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Indefblocking these as well ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If there are any other IPs doing the same type of edits, drop me a line. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking the IPs! Will do. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User: Error1010 reported by User:Matt57 (Result: 24 hrs)

    List of notable converts to Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Error1010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This is probably a sock puppet of Kirbytime (talk · contribs · block log) or His excellency (talk · contribs · block log). He has spent most of today editing Wikipedia with various socks and anonymous open proxies.

    There is a good chance its HE now that the sheriff is out of town. Arrow740 00:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't think my fifth edit qualified as undoing the work of another editor. The first one is not a revert, I wasn't even registered when this material was inserted. Error1010 01:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It was 5 reverts actually, thanks for the reminder. You're a sock puppet of Kirbytime probably. A check user will be filed on you if you keep editing. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the threats. Error1010 01:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An editor with one day in Wikipedia, who knows the ropes too well to be a newbie, and edits in same pattern as previously blocked editors. 24 hrs. Please reconsider the way you participate in this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Domer48 reported by User:MarkThomas (Result:Dismiss)

    Great Irish Famine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Domer48 has also breached WP:CIVIL, accusing me of bad faith edits, POV and disruptive editing, none of which are correct. MarkThomas 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m more than happy for editors to review the recent discussions, and determine things for themselves. I would also like it to be bourn in mind my recent contributions, to this article, and the actions of this editor. For example review the section in question and suggest a title. --Domer48 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I asked Domer48 for an apology on his talk page before posting here; his response was to paste the private request for an apology into the talk page of the main article with a negative remark, and to append the phrase "ye ye" to the request for an apology on his talk page. MarkThomas 19:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Mark, this is a 3RR allegation; not a complaint of WP:CIVIL. Can we deal with them separately? (Sarah777 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    OK this may work against me, but I just burst my sides laughing. Is anyone going to take this as Genuine.
    I should direct editors here [2]

    And then here, [3].

    One question, was it 3 reverts? I think I addressed the issue on the discussion page? Thanks --Domer48 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment:No, it wasn't 3RR; but both yourself and Mark came very close. And as it wasn't a breach I'd ask Mark to withdraw this as, by my reading of the rules, wrongful claims of this nature may themselves be regarded as a breach of WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS etcetera. I'd suggest you both take a cooling-off period or get an Admin involved here before the dispute escalates. Regards (Sarah777 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    There's a bit of a mess with editors on this article all round. I'm intervening on the talk page as a solution (hopefully), and will not be lenient there on edit warring. Tyrenius 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will gracefully accept your direction, and thanks for you patient attention. Sincere Regards

    User:Opinoso reported by User:XGustaX (Result: 24 hours)

    Afro-Brazilian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Opinoso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [4]
    • 1st revert: [5]
    • 2nd revert: [6]
    • 3rd revert: [7]
    • 4th revert: [8]

     Clerk note: Opinoso account created in 2005. No previous blocks. Report looks valid. --Evilclown93(talk) 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User warned, continued to revert, blocked. Riana (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yankees10 reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result: no action)

    Jeff Nelson (baseball player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Version reverted to: 02:41, 24 June 2007

    1. 04:31, 24 June 2007
    2. 15:57, 24 June 2007
    3. 17:39, 24 June 2007
    4. 18:30, 24 June 2007


    Substantial and very lame edit warring across several baseball player articles regarding...the color of the infobox. Has been edit warring for two days on Jeff Nelson, also undoing edits on many other articles, calling it vandalism. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism on Colors in Infoboxes.

    Strange. Lucky 6.9 supposedly blocked him in November (User_talk:Yankees10#Blocked), but it doesn't show up in the block log. hbdragon88 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous account. [9].--Chaser - T 22:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mcr616 reported by 24.160.245.86 (Result: no action)

    Wikipedia:Editor_review/Mcr616 (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Editor_review/Mcr616|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mcr616 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    3RR warning can be seen here: [14]

     Clerk note: This is about an editor's review. Mrc616 was handed an extremely negative and a tad uncivil review, which he removed. Mrc616 also felt that the review was from a sock/banned user. --Evilclown93(talk) 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No action. The IP has been blocked, so the edit-war is over. This is practically userspace, which is an exception to 3rr.--Chaser - T 00:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. This is a mistake. Calling an editor review "practically userspace" opens the door for any editor who puts themself up for Editor Review to sanitize other peoples' comments. Since User:Mcr616 has indicated a possibility that he will seek administratorship, it is particularly troubling that he chooses to sanitize this page. It should be remembered that, when listing himself for Editor Review, he choose to accept comment on his performance on WP, good or bad. Even if an editor review WERE to be in userspace, that still doesn't give said user WP:OWNership over the article. 3RR even applies to blatant vandalism, so it should clearly apply to this also. If these comments were so worthy of reversion, surely User:Mcr616 could have found someone else to revert, rather than running afoul of 3rr. He has clearly violated policy, and there should be reprecussions. 72.128.85.212 03:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the IP leaving this comment is currently blocked from editing. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bus stop reported by User:Sefringle (Result: 24 hours)

    Talk:List of notable people who converted to Christianity (edit | [[Talk:Talk:List of notable people who converted to Christianity|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As reluctant as I am to make this report, reverting on a talk page is desruptive, and this is clearly a 3RR violation. I make this report after giving him two warnings on his talk page.--SefringleTalk 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have blocked the user for 24 hours, per the evidence above. I know there have been quite a few reverts, but it's a talk page and a lengthy block for edit-warring there seems silly. -- tariqabjotu 05:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worthy of note is the fact that this comes in the middle of a dispute over multiple reversions and disruptive editing to the mainspace article itself, which is currently locked. zadignose 07:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:King Lopez reported by 72.128.91.181 (Result: No action)

    User talk:King Lopez (edit | [[Talk:User talk:King Lopez|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). King Lopez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [15]

    I'm not sure if this is 3RR or vandalism or what, but this guy has removed my comments from his talk page quite a number of times. It started with a discussion we had about a bogus warning he dropped on me. After replacing the discussion on my talk page with a welcome template ([16]), he deleted everything I had written from his talk page: [17]. I had been going to leave him a barnstar(-ish), but instead I had to leave him a sorta sarcastic message, which he blanked: [18]. I reverted him, and he blanked again: [19]. I put everything back with a warning, he reverted me: [20]. I gave him a final warning, which was deleted: [21]. And then I gave him a super-duper extra-special red-lettering-on-white-background-with-black-borders "Yo, stop it or I'm going to report this" I-really-mean-it-this-time warning, which he reverted with a comment calling me a troll: [22]. That's six instances of blanking/reversions by my count, and most of them were warnings not to revert! 72.128.91.181 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk pages are normally exempt from 3RR, unless the removed/reverted text is relevant in the context of a significant or important discussion, which this obviously wasn't. Phaedriel - 11:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially when the comments in question, inserted by the IP editor, included a picture of a penis. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've protected the said talk page due to trolling nonsense. I think we can accept that this report was made in bad faith. Riana (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also reviewing my talk page history [23] this user 72.128.91.181 (talk · contribs) has used 2 different IP's to make those same personal attacks. Which are 24.160.247.6 (talk · contribs) and 24.160.241.190 (talk · contribs) Which these 3 IP's are the same user that made the same edits to my talk page. King Lopez Contribs 09:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

    User:Abacene reported by User:RedSpruce (Result:)

    EBay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Abacene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [24]

     Clerk note: Account Abacene created today, no blocks, diff of warning. Evilclown93(talk) 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Iterator12n reported by User:CZmarlin (Result:)

    Robert Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Iterator12n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated deletion of the proper link to an article (from Bob Evans (restauranteur) to a nonexistent Bob Evans (restaurateur)) on the Robert Evans disambiguation page.

    Answer: the word "restauranteur" not only is a recognized word, but it also is in numerous articles within Wikipedia. For example, Cameron Mitchell (restauranteur) that was written on 13 August 2005. There are many more places where this word is used. Please make the changes to all the pages that show up when the word "restauranteur" is searched within Wikipedia. However, the point I am trying to make is not even the spelling, but the deliberate removal of a proper link from the disambiguation page (at least until someone moved the page just now). Thank you, CZmarlin 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer: I won't repeat the arguments in favor of "restaurateur." I'm disappointed that my (respected) opponent reverted the drastically preferred version 3 times in 24 hours, before any transgressions on my side. Iterator12n 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Once again I will repeat that I have nothing against the use of either variant of the word - with or without the "n" in it - that means "restaurant-keeper" from the French. Please keep in mind that "restauranteur (pronounced RES-tuhr-ahn-TUHR or -TOOR), by analogy with the fully anglicized restaurant, is commonly heard and seen, and most dictionaries consider it a standard variant spelling and pronunciation" [29]. Sure it may "raise conservative eyebrows", but I was not going to prejudge all the contributors that had used this version of the word. This includes the original article's title about the historic restaurant chain entrepreneur. Nevertheless, spelling is not the main point of this discussion. Moreover, I am NOT an "opponent" of anyone. Rather, I tried to correct a broken link to an existing article. It was reverted three times by a fellow editor. That was disappointing and served no purpose no matter how "drastically preferred version" of the word. Why would someone insist on reverting to a broken link? Furthermore, the comments made in the process were less than civil. Why would an editor have to stoop so low as to say use of restauranteur shows a lack of erudition?[30] on 11:19, 25 June 2007, by Iterator12n. In any case, the problem is moot since as of 16:54, 25 June 2007, Zsero has moved Bob Evans (restauranteur) to Bob Evans (restaurateur). I trust they will be very busy changing all the occurrences of the word restauranteur within Wikipedia... CZmarlin 02:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever looks at this, I reverted three times, not one time more. Finally, pls count me in re. end-of-discussion. Cheers. Iterator12n 03:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1st revert: [31] Revision as of 10:18, 25 June 2007
    • 2nd revert:[32] Revision as of 10:18, 25 June 2007
    • 3rd revert: [33] Revision as of 11:05, 25 June 2007
    • 4th revert: [34] Current revision (11:19, 25 June 2007)

    User:Jayjg reported by User:RolandR (Result:BLP issue - No violation.)

    Norman Finkelstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have explained many times that this is a WP:BLP issue, both in my edit summaries, and on the article Talk: page. The material in question is essentially libelous material about Alan Dershowitz, and I have reminded the editors on the page that Jimbo himself deleted the Alan Dershowitz page and re-created it as a stub in December 2005 when it contained similar material. I have also explained to them that WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material is quite clear: Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. Indeed, my next steps will likely be to either protect the article, or block the editors in question, if this does not stop. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from the fact that the report is submitted invalidly (we need diffs, not versions, so that we can actually see that it's a revert) this is a BLP issue, and the three-revert rule does not apply. ElinorD (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a difficult issue, because it's an instance of the source being okay (Frank Menetrez), but the publication not (Counterpunch), at least not for contentious claims about living persons. It's especially difficult because the source calls someone's work "fraudulent." As Elinor said, we should discuss it on the BLP noticeboard, so that others can weigh in. Perhaps the same issue has been discussed in a more reliable publication. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if I posted the report incorrectly. I didn't understand the instructions, and would appreciate it if someone could reply on my talk page with a simple guide.
    On the substance, the issue is not defamation of Dershowitz, but defence of Finkelstein against Dershowitz's defamation of him. If we are to allow reference to the attacks, we surely must allow reference to a thorough response. I note that SlimVirgin accepts Menetrez as an acceptable source. She is wrong, however, about the publication. The link I posted was NOT to Counterpunch, but to a later, revised, version of Menetrez's research, published on Finkelstein's own website. If we cannot allow reference to Finkelstein's own site in order to refute the attacks oon him, we really are in danger of breaching BLP in this article. RolandR 10:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff

    User:Shashwat pandey reported by User:reneeholle (Result: 24 hours)

    Sahaj Marg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shashwat pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Dear Wikipedia,

    I'm not quite sure what to fill in all of these spots so please forgive my ignorance. After a few weeks of discussing changes and receiving encouragement from other editors on the Sahaj Marg page (particularly 4-d Don, that all can edit) I spent several hours this morning re-ordering and editing the Sahaj Marg page. I then tried to engage Shashwat Pandey in discussions to work further on the page. He immediately reverted my page back EIGHT times today.

    One person, Sfacets, reverted it and then said the page was in drastic need of changes so he put it back to my edits.

    I am new to Wiki but it doesn't seem right that we make edits and then one person reverts your edits immediately. At first I thought it was a mistake, some mishap with my computer, and I tried to resave the page, but it kept getting changed.

    Help is appreciated. I'm willing to go to mediation over this.

    Renee --reneeholle 13:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Renee, please use the article talk page, but as an experienced contributor, Shashwat should have known better. As such, I have blocked him for 24 hours. Riana (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ksyrie reported by User:Wbfergus

    Korean War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ksyrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:27, June 26, 2007


    This may be more of a matter for Arbitration, I will leave it up to you (I'll admit that I am not familar enough with the different policies). This has been an ongoing "matter" with this user for awhile now, and I have tried several times to settle the non-POV issue, which the user seems to refuse to accept. (see Talk page discussions linked below).

    Instead of removing the fact,I add the info,but it is other user who revert my edit.I will be honored by someone accuse me of reverting,when I added,but not simply backtrace other's edit.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is ridiculous to accuse me of reverting,this time it's for another issue,a dead chinese soldier pic,but not the number.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok,he or she seems obssessed with all my editing of this article,no matter whether is is on the same issue,it is also for another issue,the dead chinese soldier pic.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Wbfergus is happy to attribute every my edits as revert,this time,a user added a second dead chinese soldier pic(which i found excessive to decribe the war).--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Wbfergus did the same accusation,another edit for the second dead chinese soldier.He or she can accuse all of edits as revert.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This time,after discussng the talk page,I wroteIf no further query,I delete the patagon number. before I removed this phrase.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure whether my consecutive edits should be deemed as revert.You can see the two versions of this differences all made by me,So it is not a revert.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again,I added from Pantagon,which help the reader to know the exact source,If it is called a revert，I will say WOW.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought User:Wbfergus is not familiar with the concept Revert,he or she regard all the edits he or she didn't like as revert.I add a {{dubious}} template without reverting anyother's edit.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's strange,the reference which give the chinese number of casuality didn't mention any trace of estimation,so I removed this word.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Parseboy and User:Wbfergus is wheel warring the revert my edit.It is a multiparty revert.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He or she is not familiar what is a revert,revert should be focusing on the same subject.This time I add another source,for another issue.How can adding irrelevant material for another subject of the same article be deemed as revert?

    --Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been discussed several times with the user on the talk page, see [43] and [44] for further details and the users unwillingness to be neutral.

    and on 04:00, June 26, 2007

    I am not sure whether User:Wbfergus really show the reality.The chinese casuality issue was discussed in the talk page for many times,and we can't make consensus.While the two sides,(unfortunately, I am the only one who support myself),cann't bear any changes in the info box about the two numbers,one from US Pantagon,(which I prefered emphasize Pantagon,but other two Users insist on removint Pantagon),one from China(while no sources suggest it was an estimation,so I strongly reject the usation of estimate,but other two Users seems obessed with this word).There was vestige of editing war,but there was not real 3 Reverts.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ksyrie, we discussed this numerous times on the Korean War talk page. I even proposed a suggestion, about listing both sets of numbers as estimates, and right afterwards you went in and made the Chinese number a "fact" while flagging the US number as "dubious", clearly POV-pushing. Listing both sets of numbers as estimates clearly gives both sides ample oppurtunity to express their "estimates" without labeling the other side as correct or incorrect. This can be left to the individual reader based upon the the sources cited, though as I said, politicians and diplomats are not known for their truthfulness, but more for how well they make others believe their untruthfulness. Regarding your listed edits of removing the pictures, I included those to make the case for your apparent POV-pushing. If the currect version or a future edit or revery reflects what you consider to be anti-Chinese, you edit the article to your way of thinking without regard for the concensus of opinion of other editors, and no matter how reverts are done, you still maintain your posistion without providing "reliable" source information (see again my comment about the "reliability" of politicians and diplomats). This is getting out of hand (again), and I apologize to the mediators for this. Ksyrie, please sign off on the Mediation request if you are indeed attempting to negotiate in good faith. wbfergus 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What you thought to be an estimation of chinese number is only in your mind,but not in the reference or anyother source,wikipedia require verifiable source supporting but not original research,Your claiming the chinese number as estimation is just OR,And for the american number,in the BBC source which is cited clearly said it is Pantagon estimate.If you can find any reliabe and verifiable source to say the chinese number is an estimate,you can just keep it,but if you can't provide the source,the removal of it will be in agreement with the Wikipedia:Verifiability--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is NOT the forum for this, per the "rules" at the top of the page. Please continue this at Korean War talk page discussion 1 or Korean War talk page discussion 2 wbfergus 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course,it's not a forum,and I am defending myself.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ned Scott reported by SlimVirgin (result:48 hours)

    3RR on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • Previous version 07:09, June 24; under the header "disputed deletions," he removed "Administrators should seek consensus before undeleting material that has been deleted citing this policy ..." (emphasis added). It's the words "citing this policy" that Ned has been reverting for days.
    Comment

    Ned has been reverting for days against multiple editors. He wants to remove that admins who delete bios "citing this policy" (i.e. BLP) should not be reverted without consensus. He has been blocked three times previously for 3RR. [45] SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Editor has been blocked for 48 hours. This is the fourth 3RR violation, and he was just blocked for 3RR 3 days ago. Jayjg (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This appears to be the second time tonight Ned has violated the spirit of 3RR, see here. Matthew 01:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was actually about to request another 3RR block on Ned for a different article, Juice Plus, where he's got 4 reverts in 26 hours. I would also point out that he was just 3RR blocked on that article a few days ago, and I actually supported the concept that he be unblocked, if he promised that he'd participate at the talkpage instead of revert-warring on the article. At 04:27 on June 24 he agreed and said, "I'm done with that article completely." So he was unblocked, but then at 21:49 on June 24, he was right back to Juice Plus and edit-warring again.[46] I think this time we need to let him sit out the block, rather than releasing it early with a promise of good behavior. Ned needs to go do something off-wiki for awhile. --Elonka 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Elonka seems to be presenting a skewed version of the events. Ned’s reverts on the Juice Plus page were justified because Elonka had arbitrarily deleted referenced content that was under discussion and did so by using misleading edit summaries (i.e. “Copyediting/condensing for readability”, “Added more historical info”) that disguised the true nature of her edits[47][48]. Elonka had raised an argument about the content based on WP:NOT which, as Ned had pointed out,[49] was inapplicable in this case. Several editors were discussing the content and no consensus was raised to delete it but Elonka deleted it anyway (twice) and did so in a very deceptive manner. Matthew, who is a apparently a buddy of Elonka’s, jumped in to the fray and deleted the content again without providing any explanation for his reversion on the Talk page.[50] This seemed very provocative and as though it were intended to precipitate an edit war with Ned. IMO Ned is not at the root of the problem in this case. Blocking him for his actions on the Juice Plus page would be unwarranted and unlikely to help ease tensions. Rhode Island Red 14:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, since Red wants to speak up here, I would point out that there are WP:OWN and WP:SPA issues here as well. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red. --Elonka 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Several editors have stated that the RfC you launched was out of line and no conclusions have yet been reached on it. But regardless, that RfC has nothing to do with the fact that you helped to precipitate this current revert war with Ned by inappropriately deleting content and disguising the changes with misleading edit summaries. I think it would be reasonable for you to accept at least some responsibility for the current conflict you are having with Ned, rather than arguing that he should be blocked. His reversion of your questionable edits does not seem at all unreasonable and he did not violate 3RR in this case. Rhode Island Red 14:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Halaqah reported by User:Strothra (Result:1 week)

    African slave trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halaqah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Established editor - has been blocked for 3RR before [51]. Four previous blocks for 3rr, see block log.
    1 week.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tigeroo reported by User:Arrow740 (Result:72 hours)

    Battle of Khaybar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tigeroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an established user who has been showing up recently in articles I edit, to revert. Here he even admits he doesn't know what he's reverting in the first three reverts. Arrow740 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    72 hours.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Benizer reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: 24 hrs)

    Islam in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Benizer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He has been reverted by three editors now. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a sockpuppet of one of our old friends. Arrow740 08:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Account created today. Pretty sure it's a sock, but of whom, I don't know. --Evilclown93(talk) 13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why has he been allowed to revert again? Arrow740 19:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly he is a sock of User:His excellency or User:Kirbytime. I also added two more diffs.--SefringleTalk 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this transparent sock/edit-warring SPA is still not blocked, so many hours after this report was made, shows our system to be inadequate.Proabivouac 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:129.215.149.99 reported by User:Tewfik (Result:48 Hours)

    Gilo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 129.215.149.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP has been reverted by multiple editors and has now reverted five seven ten times. TewfikTalk 08:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Revert diffs: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. There are probably others. nadav (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd block this persistent POV warrior myself, if I wasn't among those who reverted him. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just filled out a WP:RPP report also, because I think he is switching IP's. nadav (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't a 5 to 1 Jewish/Israeli POV pushing cabal enough without trying to block me? The POV pushing would be regarded as outrageous if anyone but pro-Israelis had this page on their watchlist. I mean, they're pretending Gilo is not in East Jerusalem or a settlement, in contraction of, for instance, the UN website and the BBC, and then removing references from the UN and the BBC I give. Then they're calling me POV and trying to block me for what any reasonable person would describe as neutral edits. I'm sorry wikipedia, you've got yourselves a cabal here. This is quite shocking. - Yours
    Actually one of your reverts removed my addition of both "East Jerusalem" and the sources you provided. Instead of discussing the attempted compromise on the talk page, you summarily reverted it. nadav (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    With due respect, I don't think it is fair to protect the version established by one ["cabal"-crying] IP's 10RR against that endorsed by four other users. I'm aware of the "wrong version" issues, but this case really is one where the established users are being punished for following policy, and some random IP's disruption is rewarded. Please reconsider, TewfikTalk 09:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Such lock encourages further disruptions. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also disappointed that the IP editor is being effectively rewarded for a huge 3RR violation. But in any case, he should still be blocked. nadav (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked by User:Tariqabjotu for 48 hours. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Tariqabjotu --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:koavf reported by User:A_Jalil (Result: 72h Block)

    Flag of Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:koavf is on a 1RR parole for a year , after having been indef blocked for over a half year for edit-warring and disruptive behaviour. He was given a second chance but resumed his edit warring again. He has reverted the article twice within 24 hours.--A Jalil 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Second parole vio in a recent weeks. 72h Block. Signaturebrendel 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Liftarn reported by Isarig (Result: 48h Block)

    House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User has been blocked repeatedly for violating the 3RR. I issued a 48h block. Signaturebrendel 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yqbd reported by User:Ramdrake (Result: 12h Block)

    Flood Geology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yqbd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

    User seems to be edit-warring this version back to his favorite version, despite the fact that several editors pointed out why this was inappropriate.--Ramdrake 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User already blocked by another admin for 12h. Signaturebrendel 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yqbd reported by User:Odd_nature (Result: 12 Block)

    Intelligent_design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yqbd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Like Ramdrake points out above in his filing over Yqbd's 3RR violations at Flood geology, Yqbd is a habitual 3RR violator who not only ignores all 3RR warnings, but immediately deletes them from his talk page and then makes a similar but bogus 3RR warning on the talk page of whovever warns him, leading me to think he's a troll as well as a 3RR-violating POV warrior. Odd nature 16:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User already blocked by another admin for 12h. Signaturebrendel 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Plumbago reported by 216.125.49.252 (Result: Technical 3RRV, no block)

    Flood geology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Plumbago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently this user simply reverts contributions from anonymous editors without discussion. I'll note that the edits he reverted from me were mostly content additions, editorial changes, tagging rather than reverts. --216.125.49.252 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Plumbago was correcting vandalism by 216.125.49.252, and 3RR does not apply to correcting vandalism. Meaning this filing is a bogus filing to sideline or intimidate those who've opposed 216.125.49.252's vandalism. This filing is a misuse of process, an attempt to game the system. I've suggested that he withdraw it. Odd nature 20:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide diffs without intermediate versions. We need to see what exactely the user in question edited - the diffs above show no change to the article with several intermediate versions not being shown. Please file your report properly. Thank you, Signaturebrendel 21:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is unfair to Plumbago. This edit where the anonymous editor tried to redirect the article, without any discussion whatsoever, and without any edit summary, would indicate that 216.125.49.252 was a vandal, even after assuming a lot of good faith. To all of us, this was nothing more than vandalism that needed reverting, and if Plumbago wasn't so fast in the reverts, I would have contributed likewise, and my name would have been thrown up here. This is very sad. Orangemarlin 23:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR appears to have actually occured and while some of the edits look ill-advised none seem to be vandalism per se. However, since one of the edits was reversion of whole-sale redirecting of a very large article, I'm not going to block. Now everyone please try to play nice. JoshuaZ 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, it transpires that I may have bitten a newcomer. I should have exercised more caution and avoided an edit war, but I would stand by my original assessment that the anon looked and acted like a vandal (thanks for the support Odd nature and Orangemarlin). Anyway, in case the anon is still reading, I've written a longer reply at my talkpage. My apologies for causing this unnecessary blow-up. Cheers, --Plumbago 13:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yqbd reported by John Broughton (Result: 12h Block)

    Flood geology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yqbd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user was blocked for 12 hours at 17:53 today for violating the 3RR rule at another article. I am requesting that the block be increased to a total of 24 hours because violating the 3RR rule in two different articles clearly indicates a willingness to ignore the rules. (The user has also been incivil, copying warnings by another editor back to that editor's talk page, in case there is any question as to whether the 3RR violations are merely overzealous good behavior.)

    -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    John, I believe this violation is the same one I reported above about this individual; it is, however, distinct from the one reported by Odd Nature.--Ramdrake 18:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already block by another admin for 12h. Signaturebrendel 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:91.104.52.209 reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 24h block)

    Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 91.104.52.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the user might also be using another IP - 91.104.25.59 - these two IPs are similar and the edits are the same. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the main IP account for 24h due to an obvious vio (he also engaged in edit warring on another page - having received two warning overall). The other account is an obvious sockpuppet-thus I have blocked it indefinitely. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spylab reported by User:Modelsides (Result: Article protected)

    Ante Starcevic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Spylab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has already been protected by another admin - thus, there is no need for a block. Signaturebrendel 23:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Modelsides appears to be a troll, vandal and sock puppet account that was mainly created to harass me. See that account's edit history for details. Also, I was the one who requested protection of that page because of blatant POV-pushing, vandalism of necessary tags, and edit warring.Spylab 11:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bakasuprman reported by 81.208.163.214 (Result:No vio)

    E. V. Ramasami Naicker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00.12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

    Note:He was last blocked on 17th June 2007

    I made 2 reverts which were discussed on the talk page. 81.208.163.214 (talk · contribs) is most probably a sock of Anwar saadat (talk · contribs) or some other established user masquerading as an IP. My last block was in September, not June 1007 as this sockpuppeteering troll seems to suggest.Bakaman 23:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Three reverts were conducted, one short of a vio. There simply isn't enough evidence of disruptive behavior here to warrant a block. No vio. Signaturebrendel 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mais oui! reported by User:breadandcheese (Result:Page is now protected)

    University of Dundee. Mais oui! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is now protected, so blocks should not be needed. Tom Harrison Talk 13:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SixOfDiamonds aka User:74.73.16.230 reported by User:MONGO (Result: 24 hours)

    7 World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SixOfDiamonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)aka74.73.16.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [52]
    • 1st revert: [53]using SixOfDiamonds
    • 2nd revert: [54]using 74.73.16.230
    • 3rd revert: [55]using 74.73.16.230
    • 4th revert: [56]using 74.73.16.230
    • 5th revert: [57]using 74.73.16.230
    • 6th revert: [58]using SixOfDiamonds
    • 7th revert: [59]using SixOfDiamonds

    IP 74.73.16.230 admitted to being User:SixOfDiamonds here. Please block username and IP.

    Reverts continue, now from this ip which is clearly not operated independently of the other:

    Tom Harrison Talk 15:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry but its not a 3RR to revert vandalism, your constant reverts with only the summary of "rv" are against Wikipedia policy. You are not allowed to do a wholesale revert in any case other then vandalism. Please see appropriate policy. Furthermore you are actually removing content and misstating a source. The word you keep adding "conspiracy theorist" in relation to the source is not what the source says, I posted the exact quote, and you removed it without any reason given. As well as Aude who stated I was putting words in the sources mouth. The source itself is [61] and on paragraph 9, you can see the exact wording. Your removal, and misstating of the content is vandalism and is then permitted to be reverted. --SixOfDiamonds 13:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      And now more people appear to add the incorrect statement back without stating why. Still using the source as a reference to something it does not say. Is not misstating a reference against Wikipedia policy? --SixOfDiamonds 13:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So far you have reverted me, Dman727, MONGO, and Rx StrangeLove. Are we all vandals? Tom Harrison Talk 13:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please post where in the source it states the people who believe the following sentence are conspiracy theorists. No I think you are vandalizing the article to maintain your POV. --SixOfDiamonds 13:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:VAND before you accuse four editors of vandalism again.--MONGO 13:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should: "Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." You removed verifiable information from a verifiable reference, then inserted information not contained in that reference, then proceeded to not explain why in your justification. --SixOfDiamonds 13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To save me the time in tracking your edits, would you care to state now what other accounts you previously used prior to creating the SixOfDiamonds account? We did discuss wioth you on the article talkpage and you did not get a consensus for the changes you have been edit warring on. See WP:EW--MONGO 13:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the only account the IP. I was told by others in my field about Wikipedia and the policy driven environment. Perhaps I should have been given more warning over the hostility of opposing views in the community. Unfortunately having me cited for 3RR will not change the outcome of the AfD. Just to reiterate, I do not see you defending against the above claim of vandalism. Also since you seem to be an established editor, I am not sure why you keep misstating the source. If you feel the source is invalid, as you argued on the talk page, the proper measure would be to seek removing it, not misstating it, which is against Wikipedia policy. --SixOfDiamonds 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. ElinorD (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ben-Velvel and User:Szopen reported by User:Colchicum (Result:Page protected)

    3RR war between Ben-Velvel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Szopen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Polish-Soviet War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Both have already broken 3RR. Time reported: 12:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

    1. [62] 10:57, June 28
    2. [63] 11:20, June 28
    3. [64] 11:36, June 28
    4. [65] 11:47, June 28
    1. [66] 10:54, June 28
    2. [67] 11:01, June 28
    3. [68] 11:24, June 28
    4. [69] 11:39, June 28
    I have protected the page. Tom Harrison Talk 13:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yankees10 reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 24h Block)

    Dave Winfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: Unnecessary: user has been warned before (see above): has also been blocked under previous account (see above). See also ANI threads on this. Finally: I ask this page be semi-protected, as anon-user is using multiple addresses to skirt 3RR. The Evil Spartan 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    24h Block. The seems familliary with policy. But please, don't just make the claim that has been blocked under a previous account - if you suspect someone of sockpuppetry you do need to provide evidence. For now a 24h block should calms things down. Signaturebrendel 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Jav43 (Result: No violation, but all cautioned)

    Factory farming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Now reverting another part of the article:

    (edit) Previous version reverted to: 19:38, 13 June 2007 - link to main article (I'll let the rest go) Jav43 02:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is an administrator; no 3RR warning necessary. Jav43 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is the second time you've done this, Jav. What you're calling the fourth revert was just me continuing to edit the article. There was no revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Second time? What are you talking about?
    And no, the fourth revert includes a) removing the link to the main article, b) removing tags to different sections, and c) removing the statement that proponents of factory farming say factory farming improves food safety. That's a clear revert. Jav43 02:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a revert; it's an edit. If someone had just added that material, and I immediately removed it, that would count as a revert. But it's been there for awhile e.g. (c) the food safety thing has been there for months without a source, even though we asked for one several times. The difference between you and me, Jav, is that you're at Wikipedia for the sole purpose of removing that one image. I do other things, including editing this and other articles. So while almost every edit you make is a revert, that's not the case with me. Not quite. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm. You're wrong about me. And I'm tired of you saying such things about me. But that's irrelevant.
    It's a revert. Read this [70]. Jav43 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the fourth as a revert (the version claimed to be "reverted to" did have the "main" tag, did have the example header, etc.), so that looks like a normal edit. I would, however, from a look at the history, caution everyone involved in that history that they're treading awfully close to the line, and you don't have to go over three to get blocked if you're reverting consistently enough. It looks like a mediator might be called for here, that's a much better option than having to block anyone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested mediation and filed an RfM, but there are several editors involved and a couple of them refused to take part, so it couldn't go ahead. Jave is a pro- factory farming single-issue account that has been trying to remove that image for months, and instead insert one of cows who are practically lying on a beach sipping pina coladas. Anyway, thanks for the input. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agreed to mediation. I'll decline to respond to SV's personal attacks and irrelevant commentary. Jav43 02:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Giovanni33 reported by User:Merzbow (Result:Page protected)

    State terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has an extensive block log, he games 3RR here by waiting exactly 30 minutes past the 24-hour mark for his fourth revert. - Merzbow 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a lot of reversion going on here from many editors... as a start, I protected the page to allow discussion to achieve consensus. Still looking at the 3rr report though. Sancho 04:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, 24 hour block. Sancho 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there is no need for a block, since the edit warring is already prevented from the page protection. This was a hasty decision... Giovanni33 will be unblocked. Sancho 05:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He reverted twice as much as anyone else. The block will serve as a useful record in his block log of how he handles editing disputes. So I'd say you've done the right thing. - Merzbow 05:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for not blocking me, and removing the block. It was the right thing, esp. since I was restoring valid sorced material from those editor who were blanking it, without consensus. Even, then, in protecting this article, I did not violate the 3RR rule, although it does not apply in the case of vandalism. I think that blanking sourced material qualifies as such.Giovanni33 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Giovanni, you must have one of the worst block records on Wikipedia. Restoring valid sourced material is not a reason to violate 3RR. Everyone thinks that what they're doing is valid, so if that were an excuse, we'd have chaos. Please make sure you never violate it again, no matter the reason. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cholga reported by User:Cacophony (Result:24h)

    Richmond, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cholga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [71]

    User is adamant in his attempt to word a statement that is not accurately supported by the citation. User has also refused attempts to compromise with other users and has generally been uncivil in his interaction with others. Cacophony 07:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    24h. There are four reverts (probably more), if anybody would care to check the history of the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    El Salvador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kaypoh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: Different versions each time.
    • Diff of 3RR warning: I already know about 3RR, I just forgot it.

    I tried RC patrol. And I made a stupid mistake. Before that, I thought I was doing OK and wanted to get feedback from others about my RC patrol.

    Vandalism reversions are certainly allowed. Please continue. If you like patrolling RC, you should read WP:CVU, and also perhaps install WP:TWINKLE, it makes the warning system much easier (I notice you didn't warn any of the vandals that you reverted). Sancho 15:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay! Thanks! :) How do I warn them? So when reverting vandalism on RC patrol, it's OK to violate 3RR? --Kaypoh 15:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you have to be so honest :D Evilclown93(talk) 15:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, wish every report was so easy :-). Kaypoh, I'll continue the conversation at your talk page... See you over there. Sancho 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ben-Velvel reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 24 hours)

    Partitions of Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ben-Velvel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: technically, that's only a 6rv violation (6 reverts in 24h, 7 reverts in 28h or so). Also note that this same user revert warring has led to protection of another page ([75]).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bakasuprman reported by 81.208.161.46 (Result: )

    E. V. Ramasami Naicker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00.12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

    Note:He was last blocked on 17th June 2007

    User has been into open edit war including deleting content which is cited without raising the issues in the Talk page. He faces a ongoing ArbCom case. 81.208.161.46 00:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle of Washita River

    ...has been undergoing heavy editting, and after I changed POV wording from "murdered" to "killed" per much wiki discussion, and trying to use the talk page to explain the issue, User:Custerwest reverted the edit a third time. This user is new, and I've tried to warn against this action, to no avail. Some outside help would be great. Murderbike 00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Example

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

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

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]

<!-- 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
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
-->

<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=141507601"