Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zoe (talk | contribs) at 07:12, 28 January 2007 (Reverted edits by HeadBoyAtTheSchool (talk) to last version by Ryulong). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report



    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.


    User:RCS reported by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (Result:12h)

    Three-revert rule violation on List of very tall men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RCS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    There may have been a lot more than this that I missed



    Comments: Sorry if my report was formatted incorrectly. I don't normally report people on this board. Subject was warned about 3RR policy. Although I'm not sure if he's considered "new," he clearly read my warning (and repsonded to it on my talk page), and continued reverting.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at his contriubtions, it's clear RCS is not a new user and should have been well aware of 3RR prior to my warning.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Reply : The Fat Man Who Never Came Back popped up in the middle of a conflict and took party for the wrong side. If you look at the history of the page, you'll see that some IP's (later appearing under an username) just don't want the 6ft 4 section to be kept deleted as it was for good reason for several days already. I don't know what's on The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's mind, but he certainly ain't an honest broker. RCS 07:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not want to block at this juncture, but RCS continues disruption by revert-warring. The duration of the block is 12 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, i did not continue (is this warring ?), but obviously Nick is either plain inept or plain dishonest. What a laughable administrator you are, anyway ! With people like you ruling , Musharraf or his successor will have his way. Okay, i admit this is harsh. Cheers RCS 08:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Aquarelle reported by User:Grcampbell (Result: warning)

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

    • No warning was given though this is an established user that is more than aware of Wikipedia policies. (I also believe that it is a sockpuppet of User:Hardouin


    Comments: Reverting to a version using French whilst discussion is taking place regarding this very issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France#Anglicisation. Other editors have ceased editing these articles for this issue to be resolved yet this user is continuing to edit. Clear bad faith editing. --Bob 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My reversions were to the previously established version which came before user:Grcampbell's controversial edits. No evidence that other editors have refrained from editing this articles : they are not often modified. I violated the 3RR by 30 minutes after confusing UTC with UTC+1 (where I live), my apologies. I am not a sockpuppet, and I resent the libelous, unmitigated accusation. --Aquarelle 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact you were waiting for 24 hours to pass does not negate the accusation of edit warring. 24-hours is a guideline, not a hard rule, trying to argue that edits fall just outside or inside a 24-hr window is wikilawyering. --Matthew 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aquarelle reported by User:Grcampbell (Result: warning)

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

    • No warning was given though this is an established user that is more than aware of Wikipedia policies. (I also believe that it is a sockpuppet of User:Hardouin as the user reverts to French when he is upset, edits almost exclusively on France related articles and Hardouin has a history of suspected sockpuppetry, although nothing has been proved to my knowledge. Weak evidence, but that is neither here nor there for this abuse of the 3RR). User is now trolling my talk page. --Bob 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Reverting to a version using French whilst discussion is taking place regarding this very issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France#Anglicisation. Other editors have ceased editing these articles for this issue to be resolved yet this user is continuing to edit. Clear bad faith editing. --Bob 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My reversions were to the previously established version which came before user:Grcampbell's controversial edits. No evidence that other editors have refrained from editing this articles : they are not often modified. I violated the 3RR by 30 minutes after confusing UTC with UTC+1 (where I live), my apologies. I am not a sockpuppet, and I resent the libelous, unmitigated accusation. --Aquarelle 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TharkunColl reported by User:MarkThomas (Result:No block, warned)

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

    Comments: User is involved in an edit war on United Kingdom to do with not replacing the infobox map. He has been blocked before for 3RR and has had many similar warnings on other pages, see User talk:TharkunColl for details.

    This is not true. I uploaded many different maps, and at no time reverted to the same one more than twice. However, User:MarkThomas has indeed reverted to the same map more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, and even removed the official warning I gave him on his talk page. TharkunColl 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is true that in several of the cases above TharkunColl made subtle changes to the map he uploaded in a deliberate effort to avoid 3RR, but each time he was reverting the same Euro-map which is the bone of contention. If I've transgressed it was in an effort to stop this flagrant breach of Wikipedia rules, and would be happy to accept a block for it. MarkThomas 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, this is a travesty of what I actually did. I made a map and uploaded it, then the following day made a very different map because people had expressed an opinion to show the EU. The only person who broke the 3RR rule is User:MarkThomas. I did not report him, because in my opinion crying to the teacher is petty. TharkunColl 00:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's really pointless you going on like this Tharkun - the admins can see the log of diffs for themselves and will be able to decide on the evidence. MarkThomas 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely! I have made a number of different maps based on what was discussed. All you did was revert to the same map. TharkunColl 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Except it wasn't just me, you were busy changing reverts by other editors too, as you are doing tonight on United Kingdom. MarkThomas 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You reverted to the same map four times. I listed the times you did this on your talk page, but you deleted it (twice). I have proposed a succession of different maps based on the discussion for that day. I have not uploaded any map more that 3 times in 24 hours. You, on the other hand, uploaded the same map 4 times. TharkunColl 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the place where I inserted the official warning onto User:MarkThomas's talk page for breaking 3RR (it also lists the times that he broke it) [2]. He deleted my warning, and deleted it again when I put it back. User:MarkThomas appears to be under the impression that he has achieved some sort of consensus regarding the European maps issue, but this is very far from the case as a perusal of Talk:European Union will reveal. My intention was to create a better map for the United Kingdom article, and each new one I created was based on discussions held at Talk:United Kingdom over a period of three days. User:MarkThomas, however, apparently felt that he had an overriding right to continually remove my maps, based on discussions he had had on a different talk page - and in so doing breached 3RR. My own opinion is that an appropriate map always enhances Wikipedia, but a shoddy one devalues it. To see a selection of maps that I have created, including the three different ones under discussion here, please see my user page User:TharkunColl. TharkunColl 09:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Dismiss. This is not a 3RR case but a content dispute. I suggest both users take a deep breath and discuss the matter on the relevant talk pages. --Asteriontalk 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (editconflict) :As I can see discussion on the talk page of the article, and you seem to have reached an agreement as to the usage of the image, no blocks will be issued at this time. However, blocks will be used as a preventive measure to deter editors from edit-warring further. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 09:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarvagnya reported by User:RaveenS (Result: no block)

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

    Comments: The above mentioned user has been blocked prior to this. Others have in the past complained about his behavior number of times . In the above mentioned article he is in edit war with others and has personally attacked other Wikipedians. He has called other editors “apologists of terror groups” and I have tried to reason with the editor to allow the wiki process to take it it cause but he refuses to let a request for comment to resolve this issue harmoniously instead keeps reverting the article. In the last 48 hours he had reverted it 4 times.RaveenS 22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition on Saare Jahan Se Achcha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a clear desire to edit war and troll can be found in the page history. Reverts on that page span 4 reverts in 25 hours [3] [4][5][6] Bakaman 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    71.139.4.32 reported by Griot (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Chris Daly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.139.4.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [7]
    • 1st revert: 14:56, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk) [8]
    • 2nd revert: 10:01, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk) [9]
    • 3rd revert: 01:36, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk) [10]
    • 4th revert: 01:34, 19 January 2007 71.139.4.32 (Talk) [11]


    Comments: User has repeatedly reverted over a period of several weeks. I have placed 3 Rule warnings on his/her page, but they were ignored. Griot 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Admin comment. There's not much point in a 3RR block, since this user obviously is resetting his/her IP regularly. A semi-protect will stop the shenanigens for a while. Bucketsofg 04:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:William Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result:Page protected)

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

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

    • Necessary only for new users: Not a new user

    Comments: Check also user's block log. All reverts are about removing a "border issue" section, which was agreed in Talk by 4 editors (me, User:Dl.goe, User:Dpotop and User:TSO1D) [12], but with which User:William Mauco don't agree. Some of reverts are also about removing other information. I have to mention that "border issues" section was a stable part of this unstable article from 2 September until end of December and its removal was one of the reasons of the edit war which was the cause of article protection for 3 weeks.--MariusM 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I made four edits, and not all four were clearcut reverts. The page was protected until less than 24 hours ago. Instead of seeking consensus in Talk, User:MariusM waited until it was unprotected. Then he immediately launched onto the page and made 9 major edits within 7 hours. It is not just a "border issues" section, as he claims, and he did not wait for consensus. In fact, some of the editors whom he cites are involved with me in an ongoing and very constructive discussion on how to improve this section in Talk:Transnistria right now. May I also request that you look closely at the DIFFs which he provides, as one of them shows an alternate border issues section added by me (and proposed by another user) which had broader support and consensus on the talk page. - Mauco 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All 4 are reverts, at least regarding "border issues" section. There is no alternative border issue section added by Mauco. Some are also reverts regarding US Department of State position or of usage of word "officially" regarding Pridnestrovie name for Transnistria. All issues were long discussed in Talk. Anybody who check my edit count can see that I have a lot more edits in Talk pages than in mainspaces, the claim that I don't seek consensus in talk is fake.--MariusM 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishkid has protected the talk page; also a good amount of time has elapsed since you engaged in edit-warring. I do not see blocks as being useful. Both the users have breached WP:3RR; and will not be subjected to leniency next time. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ramananpi reported by User:125.22.132.241 (Result: no block)

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

    Comments: User has history of reverting and deleting content with citations and adding content without citations including blogs.Please also see his reverts on Jan 3rd.this is despite another anon requseting in the talk page not to revert and adding expert India to accomodate is his point of view.125.22.132.241 02:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MariusM reported by User:William Mauco (Result:Page protected)

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

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

    • Necessary only for new users: Not a new user, but I warned him anyway out of courtesy:[13]

    Comments: Cronic edit warrior, see his block log. Frequent use of uncivil and/or misleading edit comments. Background: Transnistria was under full protection due to previous revert warring. Many of us are in the process of working out the issues in Talk at this point in time, and making progress. Protection was prematurely lifted in 19 Jan at 12:56. Immediately thereafter, User:MariusM took advantage of this by falsely claiming "consensus" when there was none, adding disputed pet POV items, and removing of stable features of the article. Despite nine edits in seven or eight hours, he was notably unwilling to seriously discuss most of this in the same period in the article's Talk page where I and other editors meanwhile kept working on developing acceptable phrasing, with a lot of progress. - Mauco 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Only 5th, 8th and 9th are reverts, rest are edits long discussed in talk. Some of them are consecutive edits for different part of the article (you can see my name in previous edit). In fact, Mauco want to have veto rights for all Transnistria-related articles. Talk page is showing that the majority of editors accepted the changes that I added, only Mauco was against, he broke the 3RR (see above report) and I had to revert him. I stopped at 3 reverts.--MariusM 01:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example of bad faith by the person who reported me, he agreed to remove the paragraph "Transnistria in popular culture" [14], however now he listed the agreed edit as my 4th revert. Also, he agreed to split the "violent incidents" section in "antisemitic incidents" and "explosions" [15] but now he is reporting this agreed edit as my 3rd revert.--MariusM 02:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Page has been protected by admin Nishkid64. See above. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Toajaller3146 reported by User:Axem Titanium (Result:12h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Kingdom Hearts series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Toajaller3146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: This user has also added content of a similar nature farther back but they aren't direct reverts so I guess they don't count. He has been warned several times for several policy violations on his talk page but they have been summarily ignored or denied. Axem Titanium 05:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    12h. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Supaman89 reported by User:Corticopia (Result:24 hours each)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [16]
    • 1st revert: [17]
    • 2nd revert: [18]
    • 3rd revert: [19]
    • 4th revert: [20]

    Continued reverts in 24 hr; also see above:

    • 5th revert (I think): [21]
    • 6th revert: [22]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [23]

    Comments: After some rigmarole and prior edit warring (admittedly), an agreeable version of the article -- namely about Mexico's location in the Americas -- has surfaced. However, this user continues to revert to a biased version and eliminate unrelated edits (which are cited), is rather beligerent, has been warned by me and another editor about etiquette, and is also deliberately trying to incite an edit war and get me 'banned', soliciting assistance from another editor (translation: he's 'tiring' of me); also consult talk page. Corticopia 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The "previous version" is supposed to be the one he is reverting to, so we know that the first revert is indeed a revert William M. Connolley 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed; now, can you or someone investigate and take action? Corticopia 22:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    24h = Supaman89 = Corticopia ; 12h = Raveonpraghga. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Duderawk reported by User:Bdve (Result:48h by Alkivar)

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

    Comments: Continually adding of a spamlink to an image gallery -- not only to this article but to a number of bio articles -- under the premise that "they're models, so it should be allowed."

    Blocked by another administrator for a duration of 48 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:193.219.28.146 reported by User:Axlq (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Ass to mouth (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Ass to mouth|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.219.28.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Anonymous editor persists in writing an inflammatory trolling comment on the Talk:Ass to mouth, in spite of warnings and explanations. In between those reverts, a tag was added to the top of the page explaining that this article had survived an AfD, in the hope that this would convince the anon editor to stop the trolling. That intermediate version is now the "previous version reverted to", not the earlier version prior to the trolling edits.

    He has been reverted by a group of (I think 5, maybe 4) editors now. Please block him as he is not helping improve the article just making wide ranging comments about the site.-Localzuk(talk) 23:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one little comment. Please, stop using misleading plural form "comments". Thank you. 193.219.28.146 00:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-01-21T00:20:04 Wangi (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "193.219.28.146 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disruption) William M. Connolley 00:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As soon as the 24h was up, the user resumed past activity, and has already built up another 3RR violation. He has promised to continue on his talk page. His last comment stated that if his IP is banned, he'll continue with a sock account. =Axlq 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VictorO reported by User:jossi (Result: 1 week unblocked)

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

    Comments
    • request 24 hrs block for 3RR and another 24 hrs for disruption

    2007-01-20T22:21:02 Sandstein (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "VictorO (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism) William M. Connolley 00:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not vandalism. I have approached Sandstein to reduce the duration of the block as this was the first fault of the user. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the discussion below regarding his fellow edit warrior and on Nick's request, I've reduced the block to 24h for 3RR. Sandstein 10:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)OK, Sandstein has responded below. However, this user was not vandalising, and was blocked because he was reported on WP:ANI. And since the user below was not blocked, I am going to unblock this user and leave him with a warning. I am going to continue discussion with Sandstein on this. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, now that you have agreed that it was not vandalism, it is only appropriate to unblock VictorO, as the user below was not blocked for the violation of WP:3RR. In case they feel like returning to revert-warring, we can reinstate preventive blocks again. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, feel free to unblock him. Although one could just as well block the other guy too, their editwarring is no longer going on and so blocks on either side appear to be no longer required. This is getting to be a waste of our time, even though I was less than perfectly diligent, I guess, in slapping the "vandal" label on this case at the outset. Sandstein 11:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mael-Num reported by User:jossi (Result:No block)

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

    Comments
    • Request 24 hrs block for 3RR violation and another 24 hrs for disruption

    In view of the prev block for vandalism, no block William M. Connolley 00:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user was as disrupting as the other, reverting without seeking consensus, on an an item that is disputed and that is being discussed. I would request a re-assesment of the unblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I made my determination purely on the basis of the other edits being decreed vandalism. I'm happy for others to look at this users edits, though William M. Connolley 00:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    William, It is unacceptable that a user can get way with violating 3RR, by claiming that he is "reverting vandalism". The material that one was adding and the other removing, is currently being discussed by other editor's at that article's talk page. New users need to learn not to engage in edit wars, and I had hoped that both editwarriors be blocked for 48hrs or more. I would appreciate another pair of eyes to reassess the unblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may speak in my own defense, I attempted to open discussion with my fellow editors through the edit notes and submitted requests for dialogue and ultimately warnings on users' talk pages. Two admins reviewing this situation, William M. Connolley and Sandstein, seem to be in agreement that the reverts were vandalism, and that I therefore shouldn't be banned. Is it really necessary to continue soliciting additional opinions? Mael-Num 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked to comment here. I can't see how the edits that were reverted could count as vandalism. It looks like a regular content dispute about whether the external links were appropriate, and as such I see it as a clear 3RR violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I to take it now that Jossi is privately soliciting opinions to have me removed from participating in the Prem Rawat article, while pro-Rawat editors simultaneously rip the article apart? [24][25][26][27]. As it is, due to this spurious set of accusations, my hands are tied in protecting long-stable material that has consensus for being there. Am I the only one who finds all this a teensy bit suspect? Mael-Num 03:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "long stable material"? The material about which you edit warred was added yesterday. Rather than revert each other and violate 3RR, you could have discussed rather than accusing a fellow editor of vandalism, to get him blocked as you did here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the material being removed in my examples above has, for at least several months, been part of the article Criticism of Prem Rawat, which despite consensus being against merging, was suddenly (and expertly) merged by a previously uninvolved editor, with no prior indication that this was to be done and no apparent solicitation of his help or advice. I could show that there was no consensus for this move, and that the material was stable, but all information was expunged from Criticism of Prem Rawat, so I have no evidence to give. I noted the behavior of vandalism, and followed proceedure, and the involved admin agreed with my assessment and took appropriate steps. Mael-Num 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No material was deleted in the merge by a third-party editor. In any case, note that this board is not to discuss content disputes, Mael, but to look into violations of WP:3RR and disruption. 03:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    That is a straw man argument. I never claimed it was deleted in the merge, but stated explicitly that it is occurring now, after the (unexpected and contested) move occurred. I offer this information not to seek resolution on it but so that investigating admins may more readily understand the "bigger picture" of events involved. Why are you trying to minimize this point and misrepresent my argument? Mael-Num 04:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there is no excuse to editwarring, and no excuse to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, as you did with your six reverts and spurious "vandalism" reports and sockpuppet acussation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's the reason for misrepresenting my argument? Quite Machiavellian, IMO. Mael-Num 05:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that William did not support the block, just unblocked you because of the allegations of vandalism upon which Sandstein blocked your edit warring partner. He asked for other admins to take a look and did not oppose a review. My opinion is that both of you should be blocked for 24 hrs for 3RR violation and another 24hrs for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that William didn't look into the matter and make a judgement on his own? Mael-Num 03:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Read what he says, Mael "I made my determination purely on the basis of the other edits being decreed vandalism. I'm happy for others to look at this users edits". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying that, in William's judgement, it's likely that another admin's decision that it was vandalism was probably a good decision? Or are you saying that William just closed his eyes and started mashing buttons? Mael-Num 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And finally, I would ask you to be cautious with your accusations of socket puppetry as you did here. If you have such suspicions place a request at WP:RFCU and provide the necessary evidence as per policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have blocked VictorO for vandalism either. Both parties appear to have violated 3RR. Both should be blocked for 24 hours; longer if they're engaged in other disruption, or if they've been blocked several times already for 3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an odd opinion, given that he received warnings of vandalism both on his talk page and in the comments section of the article's history. I know for a fact that he saw the vandalism notices in history, as he mimicked them back to me. Mael-Num 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would ask that admins checking this board, implement a 24 to 48 hr block on both users. VictorO (talk · contribs) to be unblocked and re-blocked and Mael-Num (talk · contribs) to be blocked for the same period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be willing to block both for 24 hours, but I don't like undoing other admins' work if they object, so I'll put a note on William's and Sandstein's talk pages and ask for their opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, just so I'm clear on this, you don't see a decision as being vandalism even if vandalism warnings were made, attempts to dialogue attempted, and blanking of cited material continuing despite a big "final warning" being placed on the user page? I guess it's a good thing Jossi called you for a second opinion then! Mael-Num 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (De-indent) I was the admin blocking VictorO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 1 week on an AIV request by Mael-Num, and now I've been requested to comment here. As far as I could then tell, VictorO was repeatedly removing large amounts of content that looked prima facie quite valid and that did not appear to be unsourced libelous material, without engaging in any discussion about it. Looking closer though, it's probably better to characterise this as a content dispute about the appropriateness of external links, as SlimVirgin does. So, now what?

    • I'd not reduce the block on VictorO until he actually complains about it. When he posts an {{unblock}} message, we'll have a request to consider.
    • I can see how it could have been justified to have also blocked his fellow edit warrior for 3RR (with which policy, I'll have to admit, I don't have a lot of experience). I'm just not sure what the point would be to do this now, as the edit war is perforce over now. In my understanding of WP:BP blocks are ever only preventative and not punitive in nature.

    At any rate, the time spent here might be better spent on the article talk page discussing the appropriateness of the content at issue. I hope these comments have been helpful and I'll not revert any action of SlimVirgin that they might want to take in this issue. Best, Sandstein 07:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that VictorO seems to be a newbie and the block template you placed, does not have the wording for requesting an unblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the ruling was that VictorO was blocked for vandalism, I don't see how another editor should be punished for removing such said vandalism. Smee 08:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    VictorO has been unblocked. No point in blocking this user; lot of time has already elapsed. Continue discussion on talk page of the article. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me clarify my position... first, I thought I'd made it clear that if anyone wanted to reblock M-N, I was happy with that. Second, It is unacceptable that a user can get way with violating 3RR, by claiming that he is "reverting vandalism" isn't true: there is a reverting-vandalism exception, and since VO was blocked for vandalism, it seemed reasonable to invoke it. However, it may well have been inappropriate in this case William M. Connolley 12:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks William, for the clarification. Sure, we have an exception in reverting vandalism, but when claims of vandalism are made to obfuscate one's editwarring, that is surely not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't relying on M-N's claims, but on the fact that VO was blocked for vandalism William M. Connolley 18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I'm late. But no one told me this was on!Momento 13:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Martin181 reported by User:SteveLamacq43 (Result:96 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Brock Lesnar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Martin181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: 3rd time this user has broken the rule on the same article. SteveLamacq43 01:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    96h. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarkThomas, User:Haham hanuka reported by User:Feba (Result:48h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mark

    Haham

    Complex, need an admin to look through this and over this to decide who all is at fault and what actions should be taken. -- febtalk 02:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually as far as I can tell, none of us were specifically in breach of 3RR, although there has been some frustrating editing going on. Perhaps if Feba can fill out the template properly, we can speed things up! MarkThomas 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, sorry about that, busy busy -- febtalk 02:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The 5 you present as mine are in the wrong order and two of them are the same edit done in two steps. The remaining three are spaced over more than 24 hours. A simple check on the history page will confirm this. MarkThomas 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I know they're backwards. I don't have any programs or bots making this easier on me. This is all CTRL+V. And again man, it's not worth getting angry on wikipedia. I'm not taking sides in this, because I don't really care about the subject, I care about making wikipedia a better medium. If you want to call me a crappy editor or something, my sig has a link to my talk page, feel free to use profanities. -- febtalk 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Both blocked. MarkThomas, I count 4 reverts in under 26 hours, and combined with your incivility in edit summaries (calling others "vandalistic") and the fact that you have been blocked before for edit warring, I think you need some time off, 3RR or no. Dmcdevit·t 09:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse block. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarvabhaum reported by User:Sarvagnya (Result:48h)

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

    Comments: Not a new user, so no warnings were served. Infact, this user has been blocked before for violating 3RR and also for using socks.

    I am a new user. Mr.Kannambadi and his friends are removing cited info. U can check the history and talk page of the same. It seems Mr.Kannambadi is coming with new ids, be it above or KNM who woked up alive only after December 2nd minutes after mr.kannambadi and mr.sarvanya reverted?I have only added citation details and reverted the removal of info.Plz check the blanking of above user.Sarvabhaum 10:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    48h. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bosniak reported by User:Psychonaut (Result:31h)

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


    Comments: See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bosniak - POV pushing, WP:POINT, and bad faith assumptions.

    2007-01-21T12:30:55 Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Bosniak (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (disruption, revert-warring, trolling, incivility - discussed on ANI) William M. Connolley 16:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nssdfdsfds reported by User:Arthurberkhardt (Result:No action)

    Three-revert rule violation on Center for Consumer Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nssdfdsfds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: User:Nssdfdsfds clearly tried to vandalize the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) article. He/She deleted anything remotely critical of the Center for Consumer Freedom, including the verified donations from tobacco giant Philip Morris and the list of the board of directors for the CCF. User:Rosemaryamey tried to add back the board of directors list, but User: Nssdfdsfds deleted it again. This user clearly has a pro-CCF bias, and it shows in all twelve revisions. I believe user:Nssdfdsfds should be banned from further editing on the Center For Consumer Freedom article.

    Provide the reversions in sequence, all you have done is provide consequent diffs; where the reversions are appropriately visible. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the history of the article, I don't even see a possibility where 3RR could've been broken. It's essentially a list of edits by Nssdfddfds, one edit by someone else and then more by the first user. Not even possible to violate 3RR. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rumpelstiltskin223 reported by User:Adyarboy (Result:Page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Vaikom Satyagraha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: User:Rumpelstiltskin223 has engaged in edit warring in Vaikom Satyagraha.[28]despite being warned he continues to do so remove and delete content which is cited without raising the issue in the talk page.[29] User is prone for edit warring and has banned in the past for 3RR violations[30] [31] atleast 3 times before.Adyarboy 10:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see 4 reverts. The complainant, in fact, has been abusing this article and filling it with statements not supported by the references, and eulogizing an extremely violent and reactionary racist (along the lines of Slobodan Milosevic). He has not shown the willingness to discuss and, in fact, has gone against consensus as seen by this revert of his tendentious edits not done by me [32] so I am not in the wrong here. Rumpelstiltskin223 10:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is a prone for edit warring has been blocked 4 times before for persistent edit warring and violation of the 3RR

    1:[33] 2:[34] This is the 5 time he is doing so and I feel he cannot say he did it in error .He was warned yesterday.The Consenus is in the page and another user had clearly asked others not to revert cited information.The content dispute can be solved with the help of a India editor.This is delibrate as it 4 time he ahs done in different articles despite being banned 4 times earlier.Further Periyar is not responsible for even a single death and equating him with Slobodan Milosevic is merely a matter of personal opinion.Adyarboy 10:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    3 reverts by RPSS. I am going to protect the page. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is suspected that User:Rumpelstiltskin223 is another sockpuppet account of User:Hkelkar currently under 1 year ban and on 1 edit allowance along with those who reported him due to extensive edit warring on similar type of India related contentious pages.87.74.2.15 11:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is suspected that User:Rumpelstiltskin223 is another sockpuppet account of User:Hkelkar currently under 1 year ban and due to extensive edit warring on similar type of India related contentious pages. He has been blocked 4 times since Dec 16 and 3 times this month for 3RR violations this month and this his 4th this month.I feel merely protecting the page is too lenient as he is a repeat offender as he did in Vaikom Satyagraha.Sorry to write for if repeated edit warring are not stopped Wikipedia will suffer 220.226.140.53 15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:M.K reported by User:203.214.13.209 (Result:Page protected)

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


    Comments: User M.K insists upon restoring three inaccuracies to the Šarūnas Jasikevičius‎.

    • User has not at all verified Šarūnas Jasikevičius‎'s marriage details. It's up to the user placing the statement there to cite it, no one else. If it's not properly sourced, it gets removed.
    • Šarūnas Jasikevičius‎ is a Golden State Warriors player, as he played his first game with them recently. If he is not aware of this, that's too bad - ignorance about a subject is not an excuse for reverting.
    • Šarūnas Jasikevičius‎ was born in 1976, when Lithuania was then part of the former Soviet Union (whether anyone likes it or not).

    M.K has reverted three times, but should know the rules regarding this. Please someone talk to him; he or she has clearly not done the right thing here. --203.214.13.209 10:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all there is no WP:3RR violation. Second if you asking information stop reverting peoples, because they can`t produce ref then they are all time reverted. Second if you had any interest you could find universal information which you deleting in several articles like this one: Linor Abargil. Second hiding proper category is not very constructive, your statment such as [35] only because you do not know is unaccountable, btw he scored 10 points in this team. second on your "statment" He was born in 1976, when Lithuania as we know it was then part of the Soviet Union while yes, this why in article is written Lithuanian SSR now Lithuania; missed this one too? So next time before reverting edits better go under proper investigation. M.K. 10:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)P.S I would also like to ask that neutral editor evaluated anon`s remark left on my talk: You realise you're free to take your personal biases to a blog site or something...'[reply]
    3 reverts, but not WP:3RR violation. I have protected the page. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, M.K. 11:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nationalist reported by User:Jerrypp772000 (Result: No block)

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


    Comments: I explained in the talk page why it is better to use Taiwan, and so did another person.--Jerrypp772000 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Nationalist only made 3 edits, for 3RR to be broken, more than three edits have to be made within a 24 hr period. There is no breach of 3RR. TSO1D 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also explained my position. Apparently, he doesnt listen and thinks hes correct, which several people have proved him to be Incorrect. He is pushing a proTaiwan independence extremist view. I am just trying to counter it, because things were fine before he came along with his mass deletions of "Republic of China" The ROC is a sovereign nation with jurisdiction in Taiwan. Please see Republic of China article -Nationalist 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.87.183.178 reported by User:Clayboy (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Pederasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.87.183.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    There aren't ANY messages on his page, including 3RR warnings. Considering he's an IP user who doesn't even have a week old contribs log, I say we give him the benefit of the doubt and just let him know he can't do that. -- febtalk 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good point. However, ample warnings were giving in edit summaries. He replied to those warnings with a personal attack. Clayboy 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd still give him the benefit of the doubt. WP says to be bold, he probably took it more personally than he should've (which is suggested since he didn't seem to read WP policies ahead of time, which most people don't.) Give him another chance, and some knowledge instead of outright banning him -- febtalk 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem here. I should probably have tried to reach him through talk pages instead of edit summaries. Clayboy 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    24h William M. Connolley 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:193.219.28.146 RE-reported by User:Axlq (Result: 48h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Talk:Ass to mouth (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Ass to mouth|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.219.28.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User blocked 24h, resumed 3RR immediately afterward. History prior to blocking:

    At this point the user was blocked 24h. After promising on his talk page to resume previous activity after block was up, another 3RR violation was racked up almost immediately:

    Comments: This is a repost and expansion of a similar report above. Anonymous editor persists in writing an inflammatory trolling comment on the Talk:Ass to mouth, in spite of warnings and explanations. He was blocked for 24 hours. During that time, he promised on his talk page to resume previous activity after 24h passed. His last comment on the talk page indicates he will resume this activity under a sockpuppet account if the IP is banned again. I personally don't care at this point, just reporting 3RR because it happened; he probably won't cause trouble if his little message can only appear on the talk page. =Axlq 05:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    48h William M. Connolley 09:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And once again, as soon as this second ban completed, this user resumed the same disruptive activity. The user's talk page is filled with explanations, requests to stop, and requests to explain himself, to no avail. =207.191.61.50 06:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Toajaller3146 reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Kingdom Hearts (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Toajaller3146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Repeated violations of 3RR against consensus.

    Not again! 24h this time William M. Connolley 17:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Miltopia reported by User:Rangeley 24h

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

    All reversions occured on January 22nd.

    Comments: Repeated violation of 3RR.

    User a marginal troll; 24h William M. Connolley 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SolRosenBerg reported by User:zzuuzz (Result:Indef block)

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

    Diffs: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] etc

    Warned as SolRosenBerg and 13.8.125.11 Comments: Repeatedly inserting copyrighted screenshot after being notified of this and 3RR. Uses IP and account above (see article history for reference). -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Report malformed and unreadable. Please format appropriately to aid us with assessing this case. --Deskana (request backup) 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been indefinitely blocked for disruption. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MajinPower reported by User:Ned Scott (Result: 8 hours)

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

    The warning was well after the edits in question. --Deskana (request backup) 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Further examination shows that the user continued reverting after the warning. Blocked for 8 hours. Please include further diffs with the report if the user continues on edit warring. Thanks. --Deskana (request backup) 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? 3RR warning came at 15:09, after the second revert (14:46) and before the third (15:48) with a fourth at (15:52), as noted above. -- Ned Scott 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got your preferences set so they don't display the time as UTC, so when I looked at the diff for your warning it said it was at 22:09, and I took your word on the times of the reverts. Was simply a misunderstanding. Not that it made any difference in the assessment of the case, mind. --Deskana (request backup) 00:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    *smacks forehead* oops. Sorry about that :) -- Ned Scott 03:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Psychohistorian reported by User:Ramsey2006 (Result:24hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on Illegal immigration to the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Psychohistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Comments: There are many other violations of WP:3RR involving other phrases, headings, etc, but for convieneince, I'll stick to the opening sentence of the section. The sentence is as follows: The US federal government uses a variety of terms to refer to people whose presence in the United States is unauthorised. --Ramsey2006 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24hrs for breaking 3RR. TSO1D 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:63.105.65.5 reported by User:HokieRNB (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Baptist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 63.105.65.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    24h William M. Connolley 09:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nationalist reported by User:Borgarde (Result: 24h)

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


    Comments:

    Gave that guy a {{non-admin fwarn}} with a link to this section. Told me to fuck off. Tuxide 05:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-01-23T06:11:00 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Nationalist (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (profanity directed at other users) William M. Connolley 09:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ezalb reported by User:Seraphimblade (Result: 31h)

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

    Comments Not all of these are exactly alike, but are effective attempts at putting across the same POV. Seraphimblade 06:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-01-23T06:59:32 Ryan Delaney (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ezalb (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (Vandalism) William M. Connolley 09:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:218.167.167.67 reported by User:Mallarme (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Theosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 218.167.167.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments:

    24h. This may well not work in which case the easiest thing is to semi protect the article William M. Connolley 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mais oui! reported by User:Mkdw

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

    • This user has been warned on is talk page and on the article page.
    • Comment This user does not assume good faith and is ignoring WP:CIVIL by leaving messages such as "Never use the "Minor edit" button to attempt to disguise reversions. And while I'm here, the "oh I forgot to fill in the Edit summary box" is not very convincing I'm afraid." when I forgot to write in an edit summary, or in his edit summary calls other edits "blatant vandals" when Talk:Vancouver its clear they're trying to help. Please help. Mkdwtalk 12:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A discussion is ongoing on the Talk:Vancouver page to try to reach consensus on the structure of the Twinned cities section. User:Mkdw is attempting to implement changes to that section before consensus has been reached on the Talk page. User:Mkdw appears to misunderstand the nature of 3RR. I only made three reversions on 21 Jan, and the 4 edits of today are reverting different things. The first two were reverting a table that is still under discussion at Talk, and (after User:Mkdw accepted that we should restore the article to the condition it was in before the POV warring began) the 2nd two were restoring the status quo prior to an IP account first mucking about with the relevant section on 25 December. --Mais oui! 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're skipping out the point that you're reverting to the version that was 'mucked' with and started the controversy. I'm trying to prevent your reverts by reverting it to the version before it was mucked with. Mkdwtalk 12:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is just not true. You persistently try to apply intermediate changes to the article, trying to pre-empt the discussion on the Talk page. The Vancouver article's twinned cities section was first mucked about with by an IP address on 25 December. The pre-25 December version should stand until/unless consensus is reached at Talk. All other editors are happy to discuss this issue, but you repeatedly try to implement changes prior to consensus. Please desist. --Mais oui! 12:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The changes I reverted to were from 13:00, December 2, 2006. That's pre-25 Dec. and has 2 flags. The version you're reverting to is Dec 25 with 1 flag. The whole issue is about having 2 or 1 flags and for as long as I've been an editor to the article, around Dec 25 and moreso Jan is when the whole issue of removing the 2nd flag really came out. Still doesn't mean you can do it in a civil way. Also, you keep saying "you" when you are the only one reverting to that version. Everyone else: User:Bobanny, User:Carson Lam, User:Kanaye, User:Langara College, User:Lofty, and myself have been adding to the article or reverting your edits. No one else but you is reverting back to that version. You keep talking about concensus, but you're forcing non-concensus by reverting everyone's work. You even reverted User:Carson Lam's work that had nothing to do with that section and he was forced to revert it back again. Mkdwtalk 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, your case is based on: "we should revert it back to the version that existed when I first started editing the article"?!? Heavens above! Please read WP:OWN. At no point did I remove the work of another editor - show us the diff. However, you did remove my edit under the guise of reverting the History of Vancouver section. This is a preposterous waste of everybody's time. I have only just realised how little you understand about policy and protocol here at Wikipedia. --Mais oui! 13:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Today's 4 edits all seem to be directed towards the flag issue and I suspect it is a violation of the 3rr. There's obviously something of an edit war going on, anyway, and it certainly is a preposterous waste of everybody's time. On the other hand, it has been entertaining in one sense- I am laughing myself silly at the gross hypocrisy on display here- "implement changes...before consensus has been reached on the Talk page". One of these editors has a history of making spam alterations, often controversial, sometimes major, and usually politically motivated, and almost invariably without any prior warning or attempt to build consensus. Attempts to initiate discussions with him are often ignored, and he has himself in the past been known to deliberately revert efforts to revert to the status quo pending discussion, in a blatant effort to ensure that his own preferred version is maintained- regardless of consensus. The pot is very much calling the kettle black here. Badgerpatrol 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mais oui! did not revert any of my rather mundane ISBN additions.[47] Carson 19:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Its blindingly obviously 4R: of the last 4, 2 are marked "rv" and two "restore" William M. Connolley 23:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And how on earth is that a breach of 3RR? They were not "rv"ing the same things! --Mais oui! 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment of mine wasn't intended to imply I thought it was a 3RR violation, or the opposite (I didn't want to get involved with the 3RR report). I was only pointing out to Mkdw that the first set of "reverts" they linked to were outwith the 24hr period that the other four were in... And it doesn't matter really if it's different things you were reverting, see WP:3RR#What is a revert?: "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted". Best guideline to stick to is 1RR! Ta/wangi 10:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:196.205.123 reported by User:ISubmit786 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Rashad Khalifa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). United Submitters Nation Member (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Comments: This is related to a guy named Ahmad Nishitoba who has been harassing other editors consistently along with his small group of followers. He has started his own group called USN - United Submitters Nation, www.usn2161.net; and has been repeatedly forcing his groups website on the Rashad Khalifa Wikipage while removing the editing of others. If you look at the history, has has been blocked for the same behavior in the past, and he just figured a way around the block by using different user IP addresses, but the edits are always the same. He is wasting Wikipedia staff time and other editor's time. Other editors have discussed the issue of his USN website, and consensus is against putting it on this page. He and his few group members refuse to concede to the consensus of other editors, and harrass the others by constantly removing/ changing their edits without reason or scholarly discussion. Is there a way to give him his own Wikipage? That way he and his group can edit it to their liking.

    User:MatriX reported by User:Dirak (Result:)

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


    Comments:

    User:Tedblack reported by Khoikhoi (Result: warned)

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

    Comments:

    User:Zsero reported by User:Fredrick day (Result:No block)

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

    User:Nationalist reported by User:Jerrypp772000 (Result:No block)

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


    Comments: I think putting Taiwan would be more appropriate. 1st of all, the ROC is known as Taiwan, and we should always put the common names in Wikipedia. 2nd, if this user like the ROC that much, in the article Taiwan, it says that it is governed by the ROC anyways. 3rd, Most, more than 55% of the people living in the ROC refer themselves as Taiwanese and not Chinese. 4th, putting ROC would confuse people because they would not know the difference between ROC and PRC. See talk page of Guantian, Tainan, there is a 3rd opinion there too.

    What can I do to stop him?--Jerrypp772000 17:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Levine2112 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    All reverts of User:GigiButterfly below:


    Previous block for 3RR: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Levine2112

    -->

    Comments: Provoked by User:GigiButterfly below. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please note that I was engaging in talk profusely and providing much citations of Wikipedia policy. Also note that the diffs above don't illustrate a true 3RR violation. They are all different edits except for two. Finally, with regard to my last and only 3RR block, please make note that the admin later admitted that he/she made a mistake in issuing the block and apologized. I add this to let you know that I am a considerate editor not interested in engaging in needless edit wars. My intention here was to help a hostile newbie better understand Wiki policy; and never did I violate 3RR. Thanks for your consideration. Levine2112 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GigiButterfly reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:)

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


    All the ones without commentary, the edit reason given was "Undo..." or "Revert"


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


    Comments: New user, but argumentative. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Maleabroad reported by User:Orpheus (Result: 1 week)

    Three-revert rule violation on Buddha as an Avatar of Vishnu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maleabroad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: This user is not new - he has been blocked before for 3RR violation. He edits both logged in as User:Maleabroad and logged out as various IPs all beginning with 136.159. His most recent IP addresses are 136.159.32.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 136.159.32.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are clearly the same user, as they are reverting to the same content and using the same inflammatory edit summaries. Please see the previous incident report for more background.

    Please also note that this user has a history of block evasion. Orpheus 01:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In the five minutes or so since posting this, user has violated 3RR on Rigvedic tribes, Battle of the Ten Kings and Sati (practice). Orpheus 01:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of this user's rather harsh language and prior blocks, I've given it a weeklong block. Luna Santin 06:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:)

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


    The edit reason given was "rv" in all cases.


    Comments: Definiately not a new user, but I can't find a specific 3RR warning before. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He was warned after the second of the above reverts, and accused of even more ("You were already over yesterday, 8RR by my count"). He has a history of 3RR warnings (e.g. [48] [49]) and in a recent arbitration case was found to have edit warred and cautioned by the ArbCom. Tim Smith 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well no, the edit reason was *not* rv in all cases; and its not clear why [50] is a revert William M. Connolley 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That edit (#3) reverts the previous edit, adding back the sentence that was removed. #4 adds the sentence again. #1 removes a quote added a few hours earlier, and #2 reverts the previous edit. Seems clear enough. Tim Smith 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This near-constant badgering of User:ScienceApologist by you at cases where you are only marginally involved, like here and previously at his RFAR, strikes me as a pattern coming perilously close to wikistalking. I'm becoming troubled by this pattern, particularly in light of the other recent issues. FeloniousMonk 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is "you"? I'm generally on SA's "side", but I would just like this to quiet down for a bit. (He had some other near-reverts, but I thought those were fairly clear. If I'm wrong, I apologize to SA and to the reviewing admin.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not you Arthur, but Tim Smith. He sadly has a troubling history of coincidently popping up at unrelated discussions scrutinizing the actions of others he's been involved in content disputes elsewhere and rushing to aid of the attacker, such as Langan. FeloniousMonk 19:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was surprised that this was listed, but I looked through these carefully and I count only 3 reverts (the first one is not a revert, I just removed a few choice phrases in an honest-to-goodness attempt to collaboratively edit). I know I'm jutting up against the limit (and WMC wisely counseled me to stick to 1RR, which I'm attempting to do to avoid these kinds of nasty bouts), but as can be seen from the other listings here, there is a lot of squabbling happening at Quackwatch right now. However, today seemed to be a bit better. We may be turning the corner. What I really find distasteful is User:Tim Smith's advocacy. Not only did he misrepresent my edits in his post in an attempt to get me blocked, he continues to goad, bait, and Wikistalk me. Luckily, until now, he has been only a minor fly in the ointment, but as he becomes more and more savvy with Wikipedia, I'm afraid he may be more of a problem. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tim Smith should continue to document his obsessive behavior in this regard. --ScienceApologist 02:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    #1, like the others, is clearly a revert. Hours earlier, ScienceApologist had removed the quote beginning "At least 3"; it had then been restored. In #1, ScienceApologist removed it again, reverting the restoration. By the way, I didn't file this report. I saw Arthur Rubin's comment about not being able to find an earlier 3RR warning, and having (unfortunately) firsthand experience with ScienceApologist's history in that regard, thought I would offer some background and comment on the diffs, which seem clear enough. Tim Smith 18:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MinaretDk reported by User:Rumpelstiltskin223 (Result: 24h)

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


    Comments:

    2007-01-24T04:24:46 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "MinaretDk (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR Persecution of Hindus) William M. Connolley 11:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scorpion0422 reported by User:Otto4711 (Result: 12h each)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template:Survivor contestants (edit | [[Talk:Template:Survivor contestants|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: Scorpion0422 has been targeting the article for Survivor contestant J.P. Calderon and this constant revision is spillover from that. I added Calderon to the Survivor contestant template and Scorpion reverted it. It was restored and reverted four times and the fifth time I restored the information I noted in the edit note the three-revert rule. Additionally I placed a note on the article's talk page advising Scorpion0422 of the three-revert rule and asking him to stop reverting it (user has been with Wikipedia for a year). Under the guise of making a cosmetic edit to the article, Scorpion0422 once again removed the Calderon link from the template. Otto4711 04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well congratulations, you have both broken 3RR and both calling each others edits vandalism doesn't help. 12h each William M. Connolley 09:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Downwards reported by User:TShilo12 (Result: 3d)

    Three-revert rule violation on Dikembe Mutombo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Downwards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 1 2 3 4 5 6 Even after issuing the initial warning (after the 6th revert) and responding to a message requiring (rather ridiculously, if you read the context) my strict adherence to WP:CITE, yet another user tried to reword it to a less "noticeable" statement, which User:Downwards still did not approve of, and proceded to revert as well. I gave him the opportunity to undo hir last reversion here, and am only now, over half an hour after the deadline I set, am I reporting it here...eventhough other users have since stepped in.

    A review of User talk:Downwards indicates that this is not the first time this user's "style" has come into direct conflict with WP:3RR, and in light of hir familiarity with WP:CITE and refusal to regard hirself as "bound" by WP:3RR, WP:CON and to some extent WP:CIV, might perhaps require further action. For now, however, I think it necessary to at least report this latest eggregious violation on hir part, so that it is "on the record".

    Regards, Tomertalk 07:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 3 days, repeat offender. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarvabhaum reported by User:KNM (Result:1 week)

    Three-revert rule violation on Belgaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Origin of Rashtrakutas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sarvabhaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    3RR on Belgaum Article:


    3RR on Origin of Rashtrakutas Article:


    Comments: The previous 3RR violation for this user is still visible in this page, #User:Sarvabhaum reported by User:Sarvagnya (Result:48h). The 48 hours block was just over and the user is back with the series of reverts on several articles. This user had been blocked multiple times for 3RR violations earlier, (Block Log) and very recently he/she has been cautioned against violating 3RR, User_talk:Sarvabhaum#Edit_warring. Inspite of all these, the user is reverting back continuously on several articles, and has violated 3RR on at least above two articles. - KNM Talk 13:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1 week. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stevietheman reported by User:Animesouth (Result:)

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


    User:Freedom skies reported by Monitor1 (Result:)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: complex reversions actually. Seems to revolve around user not wanting mentioning of Taoism in Zen article. [52]
    • 1st revert: [53]
    • 2nd revert: [54]
    • 3rd revert: [55]
    • 4th revert: [56]

    Reverts seem to be around the existence of Taoism and it's influence in Zen. Went on the discussion page and user seems to be edit warring. This also seems to have occured in Nov. 21st of 2005 as user blocked for similar reverts twice on this archive. No diffs here as I can't seem to get them[57]

    - * User actually seems to have been warned before and actually locked multiple times for revert warring on the same article. Please scroll down page to 2 blocks on Nov. 21 and Nov. 23rd by Rama's arrow and William Connelly - actually these blocks were on the same current article Zen. Can't seem to get diff's for this page as it is archived.[58]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: Most recent warning [59] but prior warnings are on this page.[60]

    Comments: Sorry if there are any errors. Not very used to Wiki code at all.Monitor1 23:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Colin Keigher reported by User:Animesouth (Result: 3/48h)

    Three-revert rule violation on List of anime conventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Colin Keigher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    3h for CK, who should have stuck to 3R. But I've blocked AS too, for 3RR and (presumed) socks William M. Connolley 09:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TigranTheGreat reported by User:Grandmaster (Result:72H each)

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


    Comments: This user reverted the article four times in 24 hours and 5 minutes. This is clearly gaming the system as is described here: [61] He ignores the talk page and simply rvs the article to his version. He’s very well aware of 3RR rule as is evident from his edit summaries. Grandmaster 08:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And with three reverts made intentionally to use 3RR as a tool to get your way ("you'll have to [stop, mind 3RR)"]), and previous 3RR blocks, you are gaming as well. Both blocked. Dmcdevit·t 08:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.179.80.13 reported by User:Jack Bethune (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Longcase clock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.179.80.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: User 81.179.80.13 appears to be a determined spammer who repeatedly links a commercial clock site to the WP article on Longcase Clocks. His recent links have been disguised as links to "Clock restoration," but the nature of the linked material is unchanged from its original commercial orientation. I hope this determined spammer can be stopped. This is my first report on the 3RR rule, so please forgive my mistakes in procedure and reporting. Jack Bethune 17:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Contiguous reverts count as one, so he has at most 2. Also http://http://... doesn't work very well William M. Connolley 17:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Prosfilaes reported by 86.27.64.111 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (Result: 12h each)

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


    Comments: This user refuses to discuss dispute on talkpage, until AFTER he has broken 3RR and reverted to "his version".

    You've both broken 3RR. And all over an invisible comment. Silly people. 12h each William M. Connolley 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aminz at Criticism of the Qur'an Result: No violation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_Qur%27an&action=history

    Despite having an RFC filed against him, User:Aminz has been doing "sneaky reverts" to re-put contentious and NPOV-violating edits back to the page today. I warned and reverted and User:Itaqallah began tag-team reverting with Aminz. RunedChozo 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You are removing huge chunks of material sourced to Patricia Crone, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Encyclopedia of Islam without discussing them on the talk page. This is a strange WP:3RR request(4 diffs are required). From the history page, it seems you are edit warring, not me. --Aminz 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You have been under RFC for inserting large blocks of NPOV-violating material, and you came in today and just started re-adding it piecemeal to try to fit under peoples' radar. That is sneaky and deceptive editing and I'm reporting you for it. Since each of your edits constitutes a revert of something you've already added, you're about 15 edits past 3RR right now. RunedChozo 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    C'mon guv, at least *try* to file a correctly formatted report... you know, diffs and stuff? William M. Connolley 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation; Aminz made only two (series of) edits during the last 24h before this was filed (and one after that). Successive edits in a row count as one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Quadzilla99 (and possibly myself) reported by User:Ned Scott (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on User talk:Quadzilla99 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Quadzilla99|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Quadzilla99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [69] is where he first removes my message, but he responds to another section so it is not the exact same version. This is the most "complete" version reverted to.

    Comments:

    I probably should just step away from this situation, but I admit it has just gotten too much under my skin. Basically Quadzilla99 keeps removing my messages from his talk page during the discussion, without moving the comments to another page. This might be speculation on my part, but it seems he just wants to remove the messages from his talk page because it's negative. During my re-reverts I also responded with new messages (my first restoration was to reply to him on his own page, but I had to restore a second time before I even had time to leave my reply). Personally, I don't think I violated 3RR, but I can understand if an admin feels I should have just walked away instead of responding. -- Ned Scott 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Read the rules. You have to try very hard to get 3RR blocked for your own talk page and Q hasn't. Just back off, Q has seen your message, *you* can be blocked for 3RR on someone else talk page William M. Connolley 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh, I have read the rules. He no more owns his talk page than I own this very page. Telling me that I can get blocked but he can't since it's his talk page is a bunch of bullshit. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Constant replacement of warnings on the talk pages of established users is usually considered harassment under wikipedia policy. --Wildnox(talk) 03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tell me you looked at the message I left on his talk page. This is not one of those warning templates or anything like that. Hell, I've removed such messages from my talk page, I definitely know the difference between such messages. The only thing close to a warning was the last comment I left where I said "And please stop removing my messages from your talk page, it's very rude." I initiated discussion on his talk page, he continues on my talk page but selectively removes the discussion from his talk page. That's not archiving, that's not removing unwarranted warning messages, that's misleading. Why else would I care if he kept it on his talk page or not? -- Ned Scott 03:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you understand that even though nobody owns their userspace, they are generally given control over it in all but a handful of situations. This is why continual edits to another user's userspace will result in the outside user being blocked and the inside user staying unblocked. I will say that it does look like a strange message to delete, but he isn't ever going to be blocked for a 3RR violation in an incident like this. If this incident should be reported anywhere, is should most likely be reported at WP:AN/I--Wildnox(talk) 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I can see your point on this. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Paul_Raj reported by User:BostonMA (Result:24H)

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

    • Warning: Editor has been previously blocked for the same edits on the same page.

    Comments: User appears unwilling to abide by the apparent consensus of editors that listing Ayyavazhi in the list of religions of India gives undue weight to this faith. Diffs show 4 reverts in 24:11. 3RR rule is not license to 3 reverts every 24 hours. Request that reviewing admin not permit gaming of the system. --BostonMA talk 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been blocked by MrDarcy. --BostonMA talk 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vexperiential reported by User:Halaqah (Result:No action taken)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mohammed Al Amoudi‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).Black billionaires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vexperiential (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • ignore discussion and revert controversial points.

    --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)~[reply]

    According to wikipedia, the one time we're allowed to violate the 3 revert rule as often as we want is when removing poorly sourced inforation of a controversial nature from articles dealing with living persons. I did the responsible thing.Vexperiential

    Please follow the rules when listing users here. Thanks. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lovelight reported by User:Wildnox (Result:page protected)

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


    Comments: 3RR violation in revert war over template placement. --Wildnox(talk) 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User may have been unaware, I left a message on his talk page, I'll report any further reverts. --Wildnox(talk) 03:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No point in any action now, the page is now protected. --Wildnox(talk) 04:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vweston3554 reported by User:Coelacan (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Victoria Woodhull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vweston3554 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Insistent upon WP:COI violation. May require further monitoring after this. — coelacan talk — 03:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 09:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vexperiential reported by User:Jerry_lavoie (Result: 24h)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [79]
    • 1st revert: [80]
    • 2nd revert: [81]
    • 3rd revert: [82]
    • 4th revert: [83]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [84]

    Comments: Reportee is engaged in a 3RR edit war in two or more articles. He has been warned. He is reverting several other editors who are explaining their reasons and attempting to compromise. He just reverts every time.

    Also other users have stated that this user appears as though he may be a sockpuppet of User:Minorcorrections, based on POV, and edit style. This discussion is found on User talk:Vexperiential. Jerry lavoie 05:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As I explained above, wikipedia policy demands that poorly sourced statements of a controverisal nature MUST be immediately removed from any article dealing with living persons. According to wikipedia this is the one time we're allowed to violate the 3 revert rule. We can't allow people citing blogs to make controversial statements about living figures and this is clearly spelled out in wikipedia policy and it's our responsibility as wikipedia users to enforce this policy quite aggressively. I'm all for negotiating with other editors and reaching compromise, but not when it requires us to violate the basic rules upon which wikipedia is built.Vexperiential

    24h William M. Connolley 09:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arthur_Rubin reported by User:NuclearUmpf (Result:)

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

    Comments: Arthur Rubin has been edit warring on numerous pages related to 9/11 including this template, where he stuck directly to 3RR, the talk page of all places where he violated 3RR and 9/11 conspiracy theories where he again constantly reverts. Can something be done about this disruptive behaviour. Arthur seems to embrace reverting instead of participating in the ongoing discussions, including at one point stating he will not accept any middleground ... He seems to be on a revert spree, and of all places it hit this talk page. --NuclearZer0 11:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bit weird. Not sure yet. Anyone else should probably read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults#Zer0faults_placed_on_Probation first William M. Connolley 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what one has to do with the other. Its not ok to violate 3RR unless reverting simple vandalism. This is not the case here and Arthur Rubin vioalted 3RR. Arbcom enforcements are not scarlet letters and cannot be used to break policies. I ask you look at this independantly without letting a previous Arbcom hearing bias your decision. I would also like to point out that I did not violate 3RR. --NuclearZer0 14:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to point out that they are not just reverting me but an anon and 2 other users: [85][86][87][88][89][90] --NuclearZer0 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All of Nuclear's edits were complex vandalism changing the meaning of my comments by removing formatting, in addition to attempting to restore Usenet-style quoting to the article. At the very least, it made they impossible to make a coherent reply to User:Lovelight's replies to my comments. No other editor's material other than (possibly) User:Lovelight was reverted. And see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:NuclearUmpf. Those were just a few examples of his edit warring, in addition to format warring here.
    In terms of the reverts on {{911ct}}, the anon is User:Bov, so, over the past 3 days, I've only reverted Nuclear, Bov, and Lovelight. One could make the argument that Nuclear's reverts are void under the Arbcom ruling, but that's still only 6 reverts of 2 versions I consider an attempt to damage articles including the template, over 3 days. (The template has since been reverted again by others.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No Arthur, it is you who are throwing nonsense (and stones) instead of arguments, acting robustly, reverting vigorously without addressing point(s) of discussion. To make things perfectly clear, I'm still puzzled about this user bov, don't think we've been introduced and I know very little about his position. I know user Nuclear and I admire his helpful knowledge of WP's, however if we seem to share the same opinion it is not because we have some sort of joint endeavor (as you are constantly, blatantly and regrettably trying to imply). For some reason, you are acting like we are in the middle of some "group agenda"? Why is that? I'm trying hard not to recognize such circus ever since I've joined here… you folks are making it a real effort. It is extremely hard to act decently, to constantly turn the other cheek, while listening to your insults and watching you enforce your irrationalities (just like Orwell; what you are actually doing is: "Almost unconsciously he traced with his finger in the dust on the table: 2+2=5") without any attempt to seek consensus. From any decent perspective, you, Morton, Tom, even Aude.., were running amok yesterday, and if there were some order in this chaos you would loose your driving license for a few days, because you're driving is, if nothing else, then reckless. As for those notes bellow, you shouldn’t talk about consensus if we are talking about revert (edit) wars. Consensus should be reached on talk page (which you've completely ignored), but it might be that I'm mistaken on that. Lovelight 21:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed the meaning of your edits? you do realize the admin will look at the difs right? I put Lovelights comments back where she put them and added response in front of them in bold so it would stand out that she was responding to the comment, then fixed the numbering since she broke that when replying to you. How did I change the meaning of your words, far stretch Arthur. I do not know how it could have been impossible to just reply under her replies ... you are familiar with using ":" to indent I hope.
    Also please note Arbcom rulings do not allow you to ignore my edits. Your arguement that my reverts are void and do not count toward your 3RR is quite wrong. You are not allowed to revert people withuot discussion simply because they have been to Arbcom before. I hope you do not take rulings in such a manner. Rulings are not permission to disrespect your fellow editors and ignore them. --NuclearZer0 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also big of you Arthur to admit to reverting against concensus, stating you are reverting 3 people on the same template. --NuclearZer0 16:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In order:
    You changed the meaning of my edits the second and third time by removing the formatting on my reply set, causing the paragraphs to run together. As I had three paragraphs to reply to the four concerns on the second reply, the rethreaded version then would have made no sense.
    It's arguable whether the Arbcom ruling makes your tendendtious edits "voidable" or "void". If "void", my reverting them is considered reverting vandalism. If "voidable", it only becomes reverting vandalism retroactively if the Arbcom rules.
    And, finally, there is clearly no consensus for either of the two versions of the {{911ct}} template that you reverted to. If I were to count, there were two editors (Bov (and his IP address when he could not log in) and you) for the "Alternative" version, two (Lovelight and you) for the "controlled demolition" version, and 4 (including me) for the "conspiracy theory" version. If there was consensus, it was for the "conspiracy theory" version.
    I should add this false claim of consensus to the request for arbcom enforcement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You arent seriously counting Morton and Tbeatty who appear on the page once every few days just to revert someone and havent added any content to the template are you? It seems you are actually refusing to participate in discussions and edit warring with 3 people then, I am glad you admitted this. --NuclearZer0 20:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether there is concensus is irrelevant to the 3RR question; the questions with respect to 3RR on the talk page are my claim that two of the four of your edits that I reverted damaged my text, making them complex vandalism; and whether your violation of your probation makes those edits retroactively vandalism. However, I cannot edit the talk page while this 3RR is open; which is probably just as well, because the article is protected and may be deleted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has past and no action can be taken, you can stop your dramatization of the situation, good bye Arthur but remember I am counting your Reverts and will report you again in the future. I hope you can learn to participate in the community instead of just reverting, its really damaging to the spirit of this project. GG NO RE. --NuclearZer0 14:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SSS108 reported by User:Andries (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Robert Priddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SSS108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    The interpretation of the arbcom ruling Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba]] is now treated in a second arbitration case that was triggered by the edit war at Robert Priddy. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Robert_Priddy Both user:Andries and user:SSS108 are parties in this second arbitration case. Andries 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Only this edit [91] is covered by the arbcomm case - the others appear to me to remove rather more than just unreliable sources and so are not covered. But that makes 3R by my count William M. Connolley 20:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Biophys reported by User:Vlad fedorov (Result: Biophys commended)

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

    Warning has been placed on the talk page. Violator refused to discuss any edits or changes. Matter was decided twice by Wikipedia administrators Alex bakharev and Mikka, violator didn't follow them.Vlad fedorov 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Biophys is commended for reverting edits in violation of our Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy. Do not introduce poorly-sourced accusations of criminal activity into Wikipedia articles in the future. Jkelly 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:4.240.183.104 and User:4.240.183.7 (appears to be same user) reported by User:Chris53516 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Correlation does not imply causation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 4.240.183.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 4.240.183.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    No prev-version, so not sure #1 is a revert. And since the anon is across an IP range, semi-protecting may well be easier if required William M. Connolley 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:FireWeed reported by User:Skinwalker (Result:)

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

    This user is insisting on deleting a peer-reviewed reference from the article and insists on labeling the topic pseudoscientific without providing outside sources for his claim. I've tried reasoning with him and I've attempted to address his concerns, but have had little success in getting him to talk things over before reverting. Thanks! Skinwalker 23:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Taco325i reported by User:Harvestdancer (24h)

    Article Kent_Hovind, fourth re-insertion in one day of an NPOV tag. Harvestdancer 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Comments:

    Sorry I screwed up the original notice, but here's what I should have written anyway.

    User:Taco325i reported by User:Harvestdancer (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Kent_Hovind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Taco325i (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Warned on the talk page of Kent Hovind Talk:Kent_Hovind#NPOV_Dispute_Tag. Harvestdancer 00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Six revert after being warned there and notified here.

    24h William M. Connolley 12:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rarelibra reported by User:Pmanderson (Result: 24h each)

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


    Comments: Four exact reversions of four different (the first and fourth only slightly different) proposals to do without a map which I deprecate as ugly and misleading, and which others have removed and deprecated. Rarelibra's last edit summary is: "you are violating the 3RR rule and purposely and selfishly removing the map)". I find the bolded part (my bold) strange; but it shows Rarelibra has excessive emotional involvement here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of you broke the 3RR. Khoikhoi 04:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not; I offered three or four alternatives; two of them completely novel. None of them are the version Rarelibra insists on, but that's why the 3RR exists; to compel editors to offer alternatives. If he had, I would not have filed this complaint. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In all of these alternatives, you still removed the map he was adding (one, two, three, four times). There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count. Khoikhoi 04:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Both seem to have broken 3RR ovefr this William M. Connolley 12:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arcayne reported by User:Bignole

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

    User:Ploughman reported by User:strothra (Result:24 hours)

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


    Comments: I believe that he may have also violated 3RR in other articles such as Cheka and Great Purge. --Strothra 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    information Note:Checkuser was "likely" [111]. Also, I reported him to AIV and was told that's not the place for that. --TheQuandry 22:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-01-27T22:10:15 Consumed Crustacean (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ploughman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violations) William M. Connolley 22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RonCram reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Attribution of recent climate change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RonCram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    Content dispute (he is wrong of course :-) spilled over 3R William M. Connolley 19:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:C.J. Griffin reported by User:Ploughman (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template:Mengistu. C.J Griffin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    {{Ploughman}}

    {{Ploughman}}

    Comment: Please note that User:Ploughman is the only one who has violated the policy here, by deleting sourced material that he claims is "unauthorized" (!) from the Mengistu article about 8 times against a consesnus of various edtiors. I was about to report Ploughman myself, but found this here already. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-01-27T22:10:15 Consumed Crustacean (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Ploughman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violations) William M. Connolley 22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Killerman2 reported by User:Bryson109 (Result: 48h)

    Three-revert rule violation on American Revolutionary War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Killerman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: Killerman2 has violated the rule before.

    48h William M. Connolley 22:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Classicjupiter2 reported by User:Jerry_lavoie (Result:48H)

    Three-revert rule violation on Surrealism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Classicjupiter2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Comments: All-out edit war going unchecked. This user is adding spam, othe user is reverting it. Both are violating WP:3RR. Bother should be indefinately blocked, as they have been warned, and involved in mediation over this, but continue to behave this way despite effors of other editors to mentor them.

    User:TheEvilPanda reported by User:Jerry_lavoie (Result:24H)

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

    User:Jerrypp772000 reported by User:Nationalist (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Jiali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jerrypp772000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: <He keeps adding Taiwan to all articles and deleting Republic of China or ROC to all articles. Now, this is wrong because Taiwan is administered by the Republic of China. Also, it is clear that he is pushing a POV.>

    No, Mr or Ms Administrator, please see the talk page of it for more info.--Jerrypp772000 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He is in violation of the 3RRR and has continually done this. He has done it to articles where Republic of China was fine there and no one argued. He is inciting vandalism and disturbances with his crusade. -Nationalist 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually we did argued in Talk:Chien-Ming Wang. And in my own talk page.--Jerrypp772000 01:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am talking about specific articles where Taiwan, Republic of China was present. And I did not do that. It was already like that. But you went in to delte Republic of China. Please read this English carefully. You dont seem to understand too well. -Nationalist 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And in Talk:Guantian, Tainan too, there was a 3rd opinion too, Mr or Ms Administrator.--Jerrypp772000 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shamir1 reported by User:George.Saliba (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shamir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: The user reverted a well-referenced section at the top of the article three times, despite ongoing discussions on the Talk page. The portion of text being reverted is well sourced, and thus far the ongoing discussions on the Talk page show two editors against the edit, and one (Shamir1) in favor – far from consensus. I consider the basis for the continued reverts to be Shamir1's original research, as discussed on said Talk page. The user is not new, and, based on their Talk archive, has been warned two to three times about violating the 3RR already in other instances. — George Saliba [talk] 02:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Bbarnett reported by User:BostonMA (Result:)

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

    • Warning: User has been an editor since 2004


    Comments:

    User:124.168.17.252 reported by User:Smjg (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on TextPad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 124.168.17.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Edit was a change of a seemingly reasonable statement on TextPad to something less accurate and in contradiction with the cited reference; reverts are reinstatements of this edit.

    User:Oxyman reported by User:Kesh (Result:)

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


    Comments: User has been copy & pasting the same anti-American comment on several article and user pages that is currently on their userpage. Reverting to POV edits made with no citations, claiming that current versions are "propaganda."

    Sample violation report to copy

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

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

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up [[Help:Diff]] if you do not know what a diff is. -->

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

'''Comments:''' <!-- Optional -->

    Note on completing a 3RR report:

    • Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
    • Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
    • We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
    • Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=103788520"