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
→‎[[User:Madchester]]: note that Netoholic is just stirring up trouble, he should be the one to be blocked
Line 627: Line 627:
'''Comments:'''
'''Comments:'''
* Madchester has previously shown strong [[WP:OWN|ownership]] tendencies on these sorts of articles. This will be his second block on this article specifically (see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive8#User:Madchester]]). -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 05:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
* Madchester has previously shown strong [[WP:OWN|ownership]] tendencies on these sorts of articles. This will be his second block on this article specifically (see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive8#User:Madchester]]). -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 05:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
**Please note that [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] has violated his ArbCom 1RR on this article. Also note that he has violated his ArbCom ban from the ''Wikipedia:'' and ''Template:'' namespaces (see [[Template:Ship table]] and [[Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates]]). For details of his ArbCom ban, please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2]]. —[[User:Locke Cole|Locke Cole]] • [[User talk:Locke Cole|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Locke Cole|c]] 08:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 08:50, 3 March 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:192.5.36.24

    Three revert rule violation on Anti-French_sentiment_in_the_United_States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 192.5.36.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Mal 03:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • This user has repeatedly reverted the article in question to his own extremely POV version. General consensus by various editors has been to revert his edits, though he has persisted in changing them back over the last 12 hours. I have put three warnings on their user discussion page in the hopes that they would get the message and behave, but this doesn't seem to have affected them. The guidelines regarding reporting abuse are slightly complex, and this user seems to be in breech of more than one rule in any case. Nevertheless, my apologies if this report is inappropriate in any way. --Mal 03:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarkSweep

    • User:MarkSweep has violated 3 Revert Rule by repeatedly deleting an image. At least one other user besides me has supported the image, so this is a controversial edit.

    Comments

        • There is disagreement on whether the image violates policy since it expresses meaning of the concept. Please enforce the rule you've been allowing MarkSweep to go around threatening people with in order to protect his own editorial stance from opposition. Letting him get away with these tactics is taking sides and furthermore enabling a bully who engaged in WikiStalking.--Pansophia 08:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverts 3 and 4 you have listed are the same. Reverts 1,2,3,5 are not within 24h. William M. Connolley 11:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • That's just my pasting error (now fixed) - please check the actual page history. There are at least 5. For my own knowledge, is 24 hours delimited by date (i.e., anything occuring on Feb. 24) or "within a 24 hour period". MarkSweep did make a series of very good edits after the last revert, but that also has the effect of burying the violation of 3RR, which I believe to be deliberate. This particular 3RR is not only WikiStalking, it is WikiPoint because it is involved with MarkSweep's efforts to suppress my protest of prominently placing corporate branding on articles: he represents my principled protest as "vandalism" while demonstrating that he can go delete my images in retaliation. --Pansophia 01:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued Revert Harassment by User:MarkSweep

    --Pansophia 06:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    They are duplicate links. Maybe you didn't link them right I don't now, but having duplicate links as such is just pointless. Stop trying to get this user blocked over nothing. Report only legitamate violations. If you keep doing this, you may end up blocked yourself for disruption. Just calm down and edit other things if this still bothers you.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppets of blocked User:80.90.38.214

    Three revert rule violation on Phaistos Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rose-mary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 80.90.38.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 80.90.38.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) :

    • All three accounts exist only to edit this article.
      • 80.90.38.214 blocked for "gross 3RR violation", this article 22:11, 26 February 2006
      • Rose-mary admits to being 80.90.38.214: [2]
      • 80.90.38.185 admits to being 80.90.38.214: [3]



    Reported by:Septentrionalis 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I'm convinced. I'm going to block for a period of time I shall now determine...) William M. Connolley 22:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC). OK, I did Rose-mary for 24h; and the anons for a week. If they come back, let me know... William M. Connolley 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Back today as 80.90.37.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as you've probably seen on your own talkpage. Lukas (T.|@) 20:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Renewed three revert rule violation on Phaistos Disc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

    Reported by: Lukas (T.|@) 14:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC) and 16:10[reply]

    User:Aucaman

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

    Reported by: ManiF 06:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Aucaman keeps reverting and placing a dispute tag on Persians to bully his POV despite the fact that his concerns have already been addressed on Talk:Persian_people by different users citing different sources and the majority of users on Talk:Persian_people (ManiF, Kash, Tajik, Zmmz, Amir85, Gol, Aytakin, 194.170.175.5) have fully addressed Aucaman's concerns and voiced their opinion in favour of the version and thereof have reached a majority consensus on the matter. Aucaman however continues to revert to his preferred version without a consensus. --ManiF 06:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Aucaman continues to break the 3RR rule on Persians, abusing the dispute system, and pushing his point of view, despite the majority's disapproval. --ManiF 09:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In all this nobody warned Aucaman or the other involved editor of the 3RR. I have warned both, and will not block this time as the page in question has already been protected. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chadbryant

    California State Route 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chadbryant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [4] --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    He keeps replacing the exit list with a huge unwieldly infobox, without even verifying that it is correct (the mileage, for instance, is wrong, as there is a milepost equation, which my version shows correctly). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You should both be blocked for violating the 3RR. Gentgeen 07:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted three times. I have now stopped rather than break 3RR. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I count 1 page move revert and three content reverts by you, for a total of four reverts in 24 hours. Gentgeen 07:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware page moves counted. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leyasu

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


    This user is reverting any contributions made to the Classic metal article apart from amny other articles like Gothic metal, etc. apart from getting into edit wars with many others. He/she has already been reported at arbitration committee for violations of the article Gothic metal. This user also gets personal and attacks other users calling them oxymorons, sockpuppets, etc. Also, other's edits and contributions are termed POV and nonsense by him. Unnessecary merger notices are put by him in many articles, viz. Black metal.

    Gothic Hero 13:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In the case of this, Gothic Hero is a sock puppet of the user New Rock Star, who has been editing articles and inserting Uncited Original Research into articles. An editoroial consensus has been reached on certain content on articles such as Gothic Metal, which the user completely dismissed and violated. The user has also been removing Merger Templates for mergers that are being discussed. The user first almost violated 3RR on the Classic Metal article with the name New Rock Star [5], [6], [7], and then went on to violate the 3RR openly, marking his reverts as minor and making Personal Attacks in the edit summaries [8], [9], [10], [11].
    I had warned the user of this behaviour however on their talk page (visable here), which was completely ignored.
    Its also intresting to note how the user proclaims they are new to Wikipedia, yet also already know all of Wikipedia's customs, and how the account was created today and has only been used for reverting articles in which New Rock Star has tried to push their POV onto despite editorial consensus [12].
    As such i admit to violating 3RR by one revert. But however, as has been demonstrated, this has been a ploy by one user using a sock puppet to set me up to be banned for 3RR, and i ask for this banning to be overturned due to this sock puppet use, unless both New Rock Star and his sock puppet Gothic Hero are banned as well. Tbank yew. Ley Shade 14:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit) In regards to the comment about Oxymorons, i made this comment to New Rock Star in a edit summary before the Gothic Hero user existed [13]. In this case i also linked to Oxymoron so that the user could see for themselfs that this wasnt a personal attack, as the word moron is often used in a degrading manner, where as Oxtmoron is a statement that contradicts itself.
    Also my Arbcom case has been going for over a month and involves more users than just myself, and was originally started against another user before being weighed in as action being taken against both of us. This case has currently not seen any action for weeks however, and due to an overwhelming amount of evidence in my favour not just from myself, but other users, i fail to find this as a reason to accuse me of 3RR violations, when the user has deliberatly user New Rock Star has deliberatly used a Sock Puppet to provoke me into violating 3RR. Ley Shade 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't say much as far as my alleged sockpuppetry. It's kinda joke ! But I would say that Leyasu has violated 3RR rules not once but many times. He has reverted kinda 7 times. Also, Leyasu says that classic metal is not a genre of heavy metal music, when everyone knows that it infact is. Also, he tries to put his POV and then tries to defend it vehemantly going to the extent of personally attacking others. I checked some of his edits and I understood one thing that he has been trying to merge many unrelated genres and he puts deletion notices too. Why he tried to merge classic metal and glam metal too. And now he is trying to merge Pakistani black metal with Black metal, which has been discussed and Leyasu and his sockpuppets are the only user(s) who are supporting the merger. Still, he refuses to remove the template. He perfectly fits the definition of those Wikipedia users who think Wikipedia is their own site and forget that it is a public domain. Please block this user Leyasu, since he is likely to deliberately modify contents of other articles. And what else can be expected from a user who has been blocked kinda 5 times.

    Gothic Hero 17:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusing me of sock puppets on the black metal article is folly, when many of the users involved all support merging or not merging for different reasons. Also, i refuse to remove a template when a merger is being discussed, simply because New Rock Star's sock puppet demands it as so.
    Taken from the above:
    • Also, Leyasu says that classic metal is not a genre of heavy metal music, when everyone knows that it infact is.
    To the contrary, both article Heavy metal music and List of heavy metal genres explicity state that it isnt a genre. Somewhat ironic that 'everyone knows it is' when the main article and the list article both say it isnt.
    Taken from the above:
    • He perfectly fits the definition of those Wikipedia users who think Wikipedia is their own site and forget that it is a public domain.
    I also find this ironic, when ive worked with several editors and im part of WP:HMM. I also, if my userpage is read, make no claims that Wikipedia is my own. I am also known for notifying people when they are acting Meglomanical, which is one thing ive been accused of as doing as a personal attack against one user in my arb com case who explicitly said people werent allowed to edit an article without his permission.
    Taken from the above:
    • Please block this user Leyasu, since he is likely to deliberately modify contents of other articles.
    Wikipedia is a public domain as this user just said. Thus, complaining when article are edited by anyone is oxymoronic, due to the fact he is accusing me of claiming ownership, yet he is trying to stop anyone from editing articles without his permission. Ironic, no? Ley Shade 17:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Leyasu has again vandalised the Classic metal page. He deleted two sub-sections apart from putting "classical metal" instead of "classic metal" in a few sentences. I had to revert it. Please someone block this user as he is directly violating Wikipedia rules. The link of the version he vandalised - [[14]].

    Gothic Hero 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The user is claming vandalism, yet is violating the three core policys (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:CITE). This user is also making it very hard to abide by WP:BITE. I am now, in direct violation of 3RR. However, New Rock Star's use of sock puppets achieves nothing, when by doing what he is doing now, he is violating WP:SOCK as well. That is, in total, a violation of six Wikipedia policys, ( WP:3RR, WP:BITE, WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:SOCK). Ley Shade 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I will reproduce a text from the merge archives of classic metal -

    I am very confused as to why this is an entry. I have never heard of Classical Metal before. I have heard of Neo-Classical Metal, but that is a completely different form of metal. Further, all of the bands supposedly in this genre fit much more easily into different genres. Plus the article seems to just make things up. I'd love to hear how Glam Metal and Thrash Metal have similar styles. Thankfully one of the authors had the sense to point out the diversity of the lyrical content of this supposed genre. Of course the content would be different since many of the bands played completely different forms of Heavy Metal. After googling "Classical Metal" I found 0 pages that had anthing to do with this article. Finally, how is AC/DC connected to this thing again? They aren't even Metal, let alone the definition of a Metal genre. I wouldn't merge this page with Glam Metal as it is complete trash. I am clueless as to what precise information would be lost with this page. My vote is for deletion. marnues 09:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    And check this edit that Leyasu or Ley Shade did in classic metal article -

    "This however is attributed due to the varying genres that make up the term classical metal."

    Both have mistakenly used "classical" metal. I can understand one of them using that but both. I do smell a rat here. User:marnues is a sockpuppet of User:Leyasu.

    Gothic Hero 17:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In regards to User:marnues being a sock puppet of mine, i authored a check user comment to see, [15]. Ley Shade 17:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Appropiate

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

    Reported by: android79 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • See the edit summary of the previous version reverted to: "I've made account after my improvemments deleted by gorm "Funky Monkey" I HAVE BACKUPS SO I WILL ONLY RESTORE". This refers to Funky Monkey's earlier removal [16] of the same material added by 81.106.165.39. Appropiate and 81.106.165.39 are clearly the same person, and it's hard to believe that the other two IPs are not him as well. See also Talk:HIStory where Appropiate describes his opinion as "fact". android79 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops. Looks like I technically violated the rule myself. In my defense, I was reverting obviously POV material, and forgot about my first revert, which I labeled as fixing grammar. I'll voluntarily cease editing for three hours and stay away from Michael Jackson-related articles for the rest of the day. android79 14:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Appropiate says she is off. Nonetheless I've blocked her, and the ...39, for a token 8h William M. Connolley 19:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Al-Khwarizmi article

    The articles history is a mess, someone more familiar with the 3rr policy should check article history for violations of 3rr. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Voice of All has protected it William M. Connolley 19:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yahya01

    Three revert rule violation on Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yahya01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    28 reverts made on 28th Feb 4 reverts on March 1

    Reported by: Tanzeel 20:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: He is constantly vandalising the article with POV edits and reverting them back each time they are removed. Have tried discussion. Please block this user, this isn't the only article he's an offender on. 28 reverts in 24 hours - that's the worst I've witnessed. Address this issue soon, please. Just take a look at the history!

    Blocked 8h; newbie but an impressive revert tally. *Please* in future put an explicit warning about WP:3RR on peoples talk pages! Now for the other side... William M. Connolley 20:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked Siddiqui too, 24h, since has previous blocks William M. Connolley 20:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:88.152.202.122

    Three revert rule violation on Ice hockey at the Olympic Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 88.152.202.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Andrwsc 22:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Updated: Andrwsc 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • User will not abide by consensus reached at Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions with respect to medal table formats
    • Some edits could be considered vandalism (in addition to content dispute) as the USSR/Unified Team/Russia medal total is sometimes edited as 37, clearly wrong.
    • The edit made by User:88.154.218.148 at 13:47, 25 February 2006 [17] started this whole mess. It was first cleaned up at 20:07, 26 February 2006 by User:Jizz [18]
    • I attempted to appeal to this user via the talk page, and by adding additional content to the main page, but the user persists in changing the table format, against agreed upon conventions.

    I've blocked that anon, but only briefly, because (a) its a first offence and (b) *you didn't put a WP:3RR warning on their talk page* William M. Connolley 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, ok, I didn't realize before now that anon users had talk pages... I will take note of this. Thank you for your assistance. Andrwsc 00:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update:

    User:201.235.45.28

    Three revert rule violation on Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 201.235.45.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Astrotrain 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Left personal abuse on my talk page, and deleted the 3RR warning on talk page. Has also vandlised his own entry here.
    • I've blocked the anon for 3h for repeatedly editing this report into a report on you. It looks like 3RR on the article to me, as well, but I'm not going to block them myself cos I probably have an interest in that article. William M. Connolley 00:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chadbryant

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

    Comments:

    Those aren't all within a 24-hour period, and you have been asked not to insert fictional information into the article. You also violated WP:NPA in your edit summaries for rec.sport.pro-wrestling history, and with the message you left on my talk page. - Chadbryant 01:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Bryant has been banned twice thus far for violation of the Three revert rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eat At Joes (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Doesn't look like 3RR to me. OTOH, WillC (co-incidence!) *has* been blocked, I think for vandalism here... William M. Connolley 20:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lou franklin

    Three revert rule violation on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lou_franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Cleduc 03:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Lou franklin continues to remove a quote against consensus of all other editors (as documented on the talk page). This is the fourth or fifth time he has been reported for this, resulting in three previous blocks. Charmingly, he's now apparently timing his edits to achieve exactly four reverts per day.

    2006-03-02 05:01:26 Guanaco blocked "Lou franklin (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR again on Societal attitudes towards homosexuality) William M. Connolley 17:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.29.239.249

    Three revert rule violation on Alan Shefman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.29.239.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reported by: Mangojuice 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Edit in question was blanking out a section of a page. This page is already being considered for deletion, so deletion of the material there can certainly be considered under discussion. Note that user User:pm_shef is the one who reverted the blanking each time; I warned him about the 3RR just now, but I would have undone the blanking myself if I had noticed. Mangojuice 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 8h William M. Connolley 17:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.48.79.237

    Three revert rule violation on Michael Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.48.79.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 3h for first offence William M. Connolley 16:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vulturell

    3RR violation on List of British Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Vulturell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Reported by: SlimVirgin (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    The four reverts involve David Milband's name being added to the list despite objections by two editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Each of the reversions was to restore cited information. Last reversion done with new citation added. Information removed by SlimVirgin and the other editor co-responded directly with citation. Not to mention that two editors are not exactly the final decision makers on anything. Vulturell 05:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not claiming to be. But Wikipedia's policies, including in this instance the 3RR, are. Grace Note 05:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again - cited, factual information presented in wording that directly reflected the citation. Not to mention a second citation was added, etc. Co-responds with the way the rest of the page is organized, as well. Vulturell 05:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes no difference whether you believe you're right or wrong, because 3RR applies regardless of content. Two editors dispute the quality of your source and what it says. You should discuss the issue further on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's incorrect. No one ever disputed either the quality of my source or what it said. Both of the sources were renowned British newspapers and not one of you expressed concern in regards to their accuracy. As for "what it says", the wording on the article reflected the exact wording in the sources and did not present any information that was not exactly there. Vulturell 05:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and as for discussing the issue further on talk - neither my reply to you or my latest reply to Grace Note on that talk page, nor my new message about the new source were replied to by either one of you. That's three dead ends where the conversation seems to have stopped without your reply. Vulturell 05:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I take one of those back. The very last message about the new citation was just replied to. Thank you, Grace Note. Vulturell 06:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No warning on talk page; but has broken 3RR and [28] is incivil; blocked... 8 hours? William M. Connolley 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    William, may I ask you to consider blocking for the full 24 hours? Vulturell has effectively taken ownership of that page. He is very rude to anyone who tries to edit it in a way he disapproves of, and the 3RR violation was quite blatant. He also declined the opportunity to revert himself, even though he could have done so for hours because the violation had been pointed out and no one reverted his last edit. He seems to think that, because he believes he is right, 3RR doesn't apply to him, which seemed to be his point above. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, will think (must be off now for an hour or so, so if anyone else wants to answer, feel free!). Also: wot about the page move? William M. Connolley 17:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The page move is kind of a separate issue, though the reason he did it was to justify retaining the edit that kept being reverted (long story, but basically the edit he wanted was not appropriate given the title's description of the contents, so he moved the title). The point for me is the blatant 3RR violation. Discussion about the content dispute is continuing, and if Vulturell thinks he can argue his way out of a 24-block, he'll carry on violating 3RR throughout the dispute, which means more reverting instead of discussion, which means less chance of resolution. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, on your advice and a review, I'll increase to 24h. Can you let me know if you want the page move undone or not? William M. Connolley 19:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, William. I'll leave the issue of the page move to the other editors. There's a poll going on on the talk page about the content dispute, so hopefully some clarity will emerge from that. Thank you for your help. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pm_shef

    Three revert rule violation on Article|Talk:Alan_Shefman}}. Hars_Alden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Hars Alden 06:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    These are not reverts but simply adding to the discussion. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be very clear about this; if any 3RR violation has happened here, User:70.29.239.249 and User:69.156.151.42 are every bit as guilty of it. This posting is an attempt to discredit pm_shef by falsely painting him as singlehandedly responsible for a content dispute that's essentially political in nature, and it's extremely problematic that this complaint is User:Hars Alden's first ever Wikipedia edit...especially considering that the dispute has been perpetrated by an ongoing series of brand new users from the beginning. Bearcat 07:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Six reverts in 4 hours is a violation of the three revert rule.
    You seem to have a misunderstanding as to the 3RR. He did not revert the page but added comments and that is allowed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you know your math, Hars. That makes it easier for me to explain this part: User:70.29.239.249 also reverted content six times. So if six equals six, and both six and six are greater than three, then why are you singling User:pm_shef out for a complaint, and not proposing a similar sanction against User:70.29.239.249's six reverts? And why was posting this complaint your first Wikipedia edit ever? Bearcat 09:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I used to always post with my ip - nothing to do with this. Ok so let me know, why are you ok with this guy breaking the rules? Hars Alden 11:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hars, you need to read WP:3RR. He did not revert the talk page in those links you provided, he "added" comments. From the 3RR page - "Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor." He did not revert the work of another editor. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    YOU need to read WP:3RR. This user has reverted 6 different edits. He did not add any comments. He reverted back to this old version EVERY time. See: 06:24, 21:24, 14 February 2006 Hars Alden 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Replied at User talk:Hars Alden CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarkSweep

    WP:3RR violation on Template:User pro-cannabis, removed the associated category five times, four of them qualify as reverts.

    Reported by: Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User was blocked for 3 hours, which I think was inappropriate in this instance, given that the 3RR violation was accompanied by wheel warring and repeated use of rollback button in content dispute. 24 hours would have been appropriate. Babajobu 11:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And for that matter, using rollback immediately after I lectured him on the proper use of the feature. This user acts unilaterally, with no assumption of good faith and with no respect for policy. I agree 24 hours would have been more appropriate. There's no need to play favorites with someone just because they have sysop qualifications. An RfC might also be in order. Sarge Baldy 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Something needs to be done about him, that's for sure, what between the wheel warring, the blatant disruptions to the community, the improper use of admin functions, et cetera. Babajobu 16:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he was using the rollback button to revert to his preferred version. It did not involve vandalism, which is what the rollback button is supposed to be used for. Babajobu 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Molobo (again)

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

    Reported by: Sciurinæ 11:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments About the word 'torture'. I had had a dispute with him over it all before (see history of the article and the old disputes at Germanisation. The last discussion over it ended with this statement. However, the day when Space Cadet was suspected of sock puppetry, Molobo reopened the dispute, apparently thinking that this time he could 'win' by mere revert warring. He was reverted by User:Ksenon, who is Polish himself. Molobo continued, again not thinking of discussing things through first. The four edits are reverts in effect. He was blocked little more than a week ago for similar behaviour, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive11#User:Molobo, the administrator responsible noting "Blocked 24h (though I considered longer)" and on Molobo's talk page advising, "Don't label your reverts as anti-vandalism; it only makes things worse." Molobo wouldn't take that advice (see 3rd revert) and if one assumes good faith and doesn't consider this duplication of the whole page as an attempt at interrupting the page that Space Cadet was reported on, Molobo just needs a longer cool-down period. Sciurinæ 12:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sciurinæ is a nationalist user who continues to delete information about any kind of discriminatory policy of German state in the past, tries to erase information about German war crimes and believes that forcing Poles out of their lands is "strenghtening national unity". If you will closely at the edit you will that it is not a revert but expansion with a link to the school in Wrzesnia where it is a large section where the events are described. Sciurinæ went to delete it at a sight without any explanation whatever, despite that I expanded the information and added link. No reason was given by Sciurinæ as to why he deleted expanded section. The link I gave gives accurate description of events which I translated upon the page-flogging and beatings leading to stripping of flesh from children's bodies. When I gave that translation on the page to finally stop Sciurinæ from reverting the sentence, he simply deleted it without any explanation. I stand by word that actions by him are vandalism as Wikipedia policy on vandalism states clearly:
    • Blanking

    Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. --Molobo 13:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute. You have broken 3RR and I've blocked you. Please learn the correct definitions to avoid future pain; better still, avoid even getting close to 3RR by using WP:1RR William M. Connolley 13:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, Molobo, learn to write your stuff separated form others, as I had to un-do that mess for you. Second, do you really try to teach about Wiki policies here? And third, you seem to attribute to others what you think and do yourself. There must be a proper psychological term for that - if not, Morbus Molobo would fit. There are enough cases were you removed undoubtedly useful, non-controversial edits with your trademark blind reverts, if the previous editor was one of the many you don't trust. --Matthead 13:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny, I could say the same about you Matthead. 153.19.48.103
    William, please double the block for block evasion. Molobo again makes fun of 3RR, just like so many times before. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Molobo accusing others of nationalism? That's made my day. It heartens me to see wikipedia's admins cracking down on these revert warriors. Doubtlessly though we'll see either him or Space Cadet here again soon. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Molobo: It is totally irrelevant here if your opponents are "nationalists", or if Polish pupils were "tortured". There is a rule against reverting three times within 24 hrs. You keep violating this rule, so you got blocked. If you are fined for speeding you can hardly protest that you had to overtake "nationalist" drivers who cover up torture. The same applies here.
    Apart from that, calling your opponents "nationalists" really seems like a Pavlovian habit of yours. As for torture or no torture, you seem to be unaware that severe corporal punishment was the order of the day in schools until well into the 2nd half of the last century. As cruel as this may seem to us today, this practice is not normally called "torture" in general usage. --Thorsten1 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reset and extended to 48h for evasion. Also blocked the IP. Please keep the discussion off this page William M. Connolley 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is very kind. Molobo has been behaving appallingly; it's genuinely shocking how he speaks to many of his colleagues. Note his recent response to your block here. He routinely mischaracterizes people, misrepresents edits, and does almost nothing on wikipedia except POV pushing/revert warring, either for extreme Polish nationalism or else related anti-Germanism. Disputed tags follow him magnetically, as does anger at his behaviour. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:William M. Connolley

    Three revert rule violation on User Talk:William M. Connolley (edit | [[Talk:User Talk:William M. Connolley|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User-multi error: "William_M._Connolley" is not a valid project or language code (help).:

    Reported by: Seraphim 17:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • After I posted a question to him for the first time about his interpertation of the 3rr rule he reverted 04:44, March 2, 2006 it with the message "ask on the 3rr talk page" which I assumed (WP:AGF) was an honest mistake because I was alittle ambiguious in my question. Every time he removes it I have attempted to explain exactly what i'm asking better but it still gets reverted. The diff's speak for themselves. (Warning is unneeded user informed me personally that 3rr applies on user talk pages) Seraphim 17:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      This page is not a proper arena for trolling. Go read what 3RR is all about: it doesn't cover edits on one's talk pages. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      It does, the exception is for reverting on one's own user page, there is no exception for your talk page. He is the one that actually pointed this fact out to me. diff "3rr on talk pages: "Please note that 3RR applies to user talk pages too William M. Connolley 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)" This is a clear 3rr violation and it should be dealt with. If I was trolling I would have listed his first revert in the report also. Seraphim 18:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      3RR doesn't apply to your own talk page. If he doesn't want your message on his talk page, that's his business. It may be rude, but he's not going to get blocked for it. android79 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      That is not true, show me where that is in policy and i'll remove this report. It clearly states "User page" never says anything about your own talk page. I've seen people be blocked for 3rr on their own talk pages before when removing warnings. Seraphim 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Here's the quoted relevant text from WP:3rr "The 3RR is generally not enforced against editors reverting changes to their own user page space, on the principle that your user space is yours (for project-related purposes)." a users's own talk page is not given an exemption. Seraphim 19:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't Wiki-lawyer. It quite clearly says "their own user page space". User-space is understood to mean anything preceded by "User:" (and, by extension, "User talk:"). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      User Page Space is a diffent namespace then user talk space, it clearly states that it is talking about user page space, not simply user space. It is obvious that the 3rr thing is not talking about user-talk pages. The purpose of a user talk page is not used for project-related purposes, the purpose of the user-talk pages is for other users to leave you messages. Are we changing official policy here? I've looked through the history of the 3rr discussion page and nowhere was a proposal made to make it apply to user talk pages also, infact on aug 19 2005 (from the archive) user Nate Ladd posted a message that pointed out exactly what I am, that user talk pages are not covered by the current policy (it hasn't changed since then). If you want to make up new policy that's fine, however currently the 3rr exemption about user pages does not apply to user talk pages. Seraphim 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seraphim 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a waste of time. Under your interpretation of these rules, people can leave annoying, offensive, or obnoxious messages on someone's user talk page, and that person can't remove them without getting into a revert war and risking a 3rr violation. This is an open invitation to trolls.

    I don't know what the underlying dispute is, but please work it out some other way besides wikilawyering. No one is going to block WMC for removing messages from his own talk page, and on the slim chance anyone does, he will be quickly unblocked. Gamaliel 21:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There are other policies that cover removal of annoying, offensive, or obnoxious messages, for example WP:NPA. What he is removing without comment is simply me asking him a simple question that any administrator should beable to answer. How that particular admin decides when it is too late to ban someone under 3rr. It is a simple question that any admin who polices the 3rr page should beable to answer. The is no reason I can think of for him to refuse to answer the question. It's not a personal attack, or offensive/obnoxious in any way. Seraphim 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Its up to the judgement of the admin and varies greatly on the particular circumstances; there's no easy answer. Perhaps you should have taken your question to the 3rr talk page as asked and avoided all this? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeup i'm completly aware about that. However I am not interested in how other administrators interperate the policy, I am interested in WMC's specifically, which I explained on his talk page after he said to ask about it on Talk:3rr. Seraphim 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Many times I have been pestered by trolls who have posted obnoxious messages on my talk page and then, when confronted, claim they were merely asking an innocent question. I have no reason to doubt that your motives were perfectly innocent, but your motives are irrelevant. A person should be able to decide who he or she wishes to converse with and doesn't need to provide you with an explaination. Gamaliel 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What I am attempting to do is help add information about his recent block of me and the subsequent discussion to a RFC case that is already being built against him by a few users who he has wrongfully blocked. When he blocked me he did not do research into the 3rr request, just assumed the 3rr report was valid. During our discussion after his blocking of me I pointed out that blocking policy says you must treat both sides equally, and I proved that if he blocked me for 3rr he should also have blocked another user. His reply to that was that it is too late to block the other user. I am interested in how he came to the decision that it was too late to block the other user, since there was no changes to the situation between my block and when WMC decided that it was too late to block the other user. Just FYI when I was blocked the 3rr request was 10 hrs old, we had already reached an agreement that called a cease fire and we had filed a joint request to get the page locked and all agreed to official mediation. Since his blocking of me obviously wasn't to stop edit warring (we had already called a cease fire and agreed to not edit the page untill mediation starts) it implies that he rules on 3rr's by time elapsed since the 3rr report, however when he decided to not block the other user less time had expired between that user's reverts and his decision to not block that user, then the amount of time between my reverts and him blocking me. I am simply interested in what his interpertation of the 3rr policy is that he used to make the decision to block me but not the other user. Seraphim 22:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that matters. Whether or not WMC should have answered your question is a matter for WMC and no one should be making that call for him or forcing him to do it. If you didn't recieve a satisfactory answer, you should have asked another administrator or inquired on WP:AN. Gamaliel 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't file this 3rr because he was refusing to answer the question, him blanket reverting it without adknowledging it is considered to be a hostile act and provides me with the same type of information I was trying to get by asking it. That is not the point of this 3rr. The point of filing this 3rr was that he clearly violated 3rr. Nowhere in policy does it give an exception for users editing their own talk page, if people want that to be policy they should formally request it. Seraphim 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Restriction of user talk pages only applies to vandalism. That is, anonymous editors removing warnings, or users removing 3RR notices or other warnings, or block notifications, etc. (as the community needs to know that). Deleting inquiries is not vandalism, although if extreme can show fallout with the community. Deletion of inquiries is merely non-cooperation, something to be brought up in RFAr or RFC with other grievances. Seraphim, this is not the place. File an RFC if you wish. Please do not wikilawyer. The user talk space is within the userspace. Follow the spirit of the law, this is not codification. Remember, even if this was converted into a legal system Wikipolicy would basically be restated common law, subject to liberal interpretation. But this is not a legal system so your complaint does not stand either way. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Firmitas

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

    Reported by: Jcbarr 17:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • The page is a mess because of all the attention last night, but I think the examples above should be at least 4 reverts to the same text he wants to add. -Jcbarr 17:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 8h as a first offence William M. Connolley 19:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't want to just delete this entry, but I'd like to withdraw this nomination. Firmitas has been trying to play by the rules as he's learned of them and I while he still deserves a close eye, I may have bit the newbie a bit too hard. -Jcbarr 19:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mais oui!

    Three revert rule violation on {{Infobox Scotland place}}. Mais_oui! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Aquilina 18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    I can fully see the user's point, and would be perfectly happy for his version to stand: however, the user has recently been engaged in a couple of other edit-wars [29], [30], and this 3RR violation came only half an hour after admin User:JzG warned him for edit-warring [31]

    I know the editor's heart is in the right place, and I agree with his edits in all bar one case above(!); but he is not above the rules and needs a cool-off period, as it's now becoming disruptive. Let's use the talk pages first Aquilina 18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia would not gain by blocking Mais Oui!; he does much laborious work, and I know from experience his edits are the result of good integrity. This listing will almost certainly be enough for the intended effect. On the other hand, there are plenty of users who by habit hug the 3RR rule to engage in POV revert warring and go largely unpunished, and with whom blocking is a "hazard of the job" as they say, rather than a means of reducing revert wars. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. I've been talking with the user, and there is a valid concern with vandalism and POV pushing. I should also have notified them that they were near the three rvert threshold when I was looking at the history of the template (plus I poured petrol on the flames by clicking in haste). This is fundamentally a good solid editor with no malice, and the revert could defensibly be viewed as anti-vandalism. I am also looking at the user with whom he has the dispute, and I don't like what I am finding. I say give Mais Oui! a pass on this one. Just zis Guy you know? 19:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor has been revert warring both on this template and other articles. A lesson in not doing so is in order, so I will block for 24hrs. You don't get a pass for disliking the user you are warring with, and the revert is not anti-vandalism. -Splashtalk 19:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:I AM

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

    Reported by: Palmiro | Talk 18:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked 24h (3RR and incivility), so I guess I don't get your eternal gratitude :-( but others will free to earn it I'm sure William M. Connolley 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:McKhan

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [32]
    • 1st revert: [33]
    • 2nd revert: [34]
    • 3rd revert: [35]
    • 4th revert: [36]

    Reported by: Pepsidrinka 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: There have been 16 more reverts for a total of 20 reverts. The other user, User:Muslim sunni also reverted quite a number of times, almost 15. Also, an IP reverted 4 times. User:65.92.130.151.

    I have blocked McKhan, Muslim_sunni, 65.92.130.151 and 62.131.149.252 for 24 hours each. -Splashtalk 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think any of the parties have gotten a 3RR warning. I've protected the page and issued a collective warning to everybody on the talk page. Gamaliel 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    They're all blocked. Why protect it? -Splashtalk 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I protected it before we simultaneously posted here, so I didn't know anyone was blocked. If you want to keep an eye on this edit war, I'll unprotect it and leave the matter to you, that's fine with me. Gamaliel 19:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohhh, nononono. I'm not going to take the edit war under my Wikipedic wing. Hopefully 24 hours will give them each enough to take a cold shower. Perhaps leave protection in place for a few hours against the anon(s) who have been fooling around to, and then see if the blocks serve their purpose. -Splashtalk 20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll downgrade it to sprotect for now. Gamaliel 20:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Heja helweda

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

    Reported by: Zmmz 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:Dear admin the user in question was warned before, however, the user erased the warning, and was warned again to no avail. User:Heja helweda is a chronic 3rr violator in the Iranian people article page, as well as, the Persian people, and perhaps elsewhere. The user also frequently violate the good faith assumption policy and has, and continues to write excessive amount of text in the discussion pages of the articles mentioned, and in other articles too. This is my first time reporting, and I am not certain if I have entered all the data correctly. Kindly look into this matter. Thanks. Zmmz 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's a bit messy because you didn't format it right, but I don't see any 3RR violation here. Although Heja helweda has been a frequent contributor to the page over the last few hours, no two versions of the page by this user are the same. For unresolvable content disputes, see requests for comment, three doors down. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • The user has utilized sneaky language, and he put the same contents back on the page previously edited by another user. Non of that is good enough? It was not good enough for user Aucaman either, huh? Doesn`t it qualify as a partial revert? Zmmz 04:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any reverts by this user, and I definitely don't see four of them to the same version of the page, which is what is required for a 3RR violation. As I said, if you feel that there is an unresolvable content dispute, you need to open up an RFC or use some other dispute resolution mechanism. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Madchester

    Three revert rule violation on The Amazing Race 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Madchester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Netoholic @ 05:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    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|USERNAME}}:

* Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
* 1st revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]
* 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

Reported by: ~~~~

'''Comments:'''
*
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=42029401"