Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:A Man In Black reported by User:DHowell (Result:No block)

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

    Comments: This is an admin, who should know better, but seems to believe he is exempt from one policy because he is attempting to enforce another. His interpretation of fair use policy is not consensus and has repeatedly been disputed. See, e.g. Wikipedia:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries.

    This is copyvio content, not a content dispute. DHowell doesn't feel that it's copyvio, but hasn't yet had any success (after many months) making any impact on policy. In the meantime, policy hasn't changed, and I've had to clean up copyvio non-free images. It's probably my mistake for not just deleting them on sight, but instead leaving them orphaned for people to write encyclopedic commentary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with AMIB's position -- this is a bad-faith report that should be disregarded. I've witness reporting user Dhowell attempt to misrepresent policy to further his position, and obviously making inappropriate noticeboard complaints. /Blaxthos 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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


    Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Comments
    Possibly using a Sock to bypass the 3RR Greatgallsoffire is a SPA which has only being used for inserting the NPOV tag which is what User:SqueakBox is doing. DXRAW 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Comments

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

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

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

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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [6]
    Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    Comments

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

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

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

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


    Comments

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

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

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

    Comments

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

    Addenda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    but later David York makes another revert:


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

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

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

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

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

    And now,


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (From 1st to 3rd: 12 hours)

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Comments
    *User keeps removing a part of the cast table, without saying why.. An IP started this, and Leto continued.. Matthew and I have left messages on their talk page, but user just keeps reverting.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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

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

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


    Comments
    User is involved in an editing dispute with User:Man2 and User:G-Man, in which the latter two may very well be wrong. Both User:Man2 and User:G-Man are at their edit limits for the page.

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

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

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

    Bold text

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

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

    Comments
    Another violation from Malfunction, who just got off a 72 hour block for 3RR violation on the same article. Requesting the block either be long or indefinite, as the user seems to have no interest in Wikipedia other than edit-warring and POV-pushing. --Wildnox(talk) 01:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


    Comments

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

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

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

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

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

    This report is wrong: the 16:10 edit reverts the 16:03 (as the reporter is fully aware: this is a bad faith report) hence this is only 3R William M. Connolley 17:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so. Even if you don't include the self revert, and the revert associated with it, there are still 3 reverts on the same topic within 24 hours. 09:04 14:47 and 21:44.--Zeeboid 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ==User:Tvoz reported by User:HumanThing (Result:)

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

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

    There's a 7th and 8th revert.


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

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

    Sample violation report to copy

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

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

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

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

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

    Note on completing a 3RR report:

    • Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
    • Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
    • We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
    • Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=117401600"