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 Parsifal (talk | contribs) at 04:20, 6 November 2007 (→‎User:Saguy1982 reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result: Page sprotected): correction of a link "for the archive"; this report is already closed). 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.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be actioned if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly

    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:Dicklyon reported by User:Geoeg (Result: 24 hours for Dicklyon and 48 hours for Geoeg )

    Least-squares spectral analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

    This user engages in edit wars, sets block traps while misusing WP regulations, is ignorant in the article subject matter (my article has been featured on WP main page) and has a history of edit wars with many editors. He keeps pushing his POV on "sinusoids" being the keyword for the article I wrote, but he can not back it up with scientific references on the article method. On the other hand, I stated two references on the method that use more general "trigonometric functions" instead of sinusoids, but he keeps replacing them with references related to a completely different method (Fourier analysis). Note his 3RR violations also happened with other parts of the article but I am just filing one report. Please see my Talk for the complete list of all of his violations (bolded items at the bottom, separate section). Geoeg 19:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Davkal reported by User:Baegis (Result: page protected)

    List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [1]

    There has been an ongoing discussion on this page between a group of users. 3 editors were contending that a book that has long since been used for this particular list. Davkal kept re-adding irrelevant commentary about one topic after it was established on the talk page that the commentary wasn't relevant in regards to the list. After his 2nd revert, he was warned by OrangeMarlin that he was approaching the 3RR limit. He deleted the warning and then accused me of being a sockpuppet of ScienceApologist on OrangeMarlin's user page [2]. He then began to insert a disputed tag onto the article, which I reverted twice. With regards to the 5th edit, a user who had only once visited the page came in and undid my revision, possibly to try to save Davkal from an obvious 3RR. Davkal has an extensive history of 3RR and has also been quite uncivil during the entire talk page discussion. Baegis 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected for two weeks – the diffs aren't technically a 3RR violation, but it's clear the article is a free-for-all right now. KrakatoaKatie 11:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:DreamStar05 reported by User:Nikki311 (Result: 31 hours )

    WWE Diva Search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DreamStar05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

    This user originally created an article at both Brooke Gilbertsen and Brooke Gilbertson, both of which I tagged for speedy deletion as they did not establish notability and have already been deleted several times for that reason. WP:PW has already decided that being in the Search alone is not enough to establish notability. After removing the tag from one, despite being the original author, I left a message on their talk page explaining about the hang on tag. In response, they added all the information about Gilbertson to WWE Diva Search, even though the article is about the Search itself, and not about the contestants (none of the other contestants have short bios). I left the warning about 3RR after the third revert, and they reverted twice after that. Nikki311 00:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DreamStar05 blocked for 31 hours. KrakatoaKatie 12:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DemolitionMan reported by User:Josquius (Result:1 week)

    Indian Rebellion of 1857 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DemolitionMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    DemolitionMan is determined to push a Hindu nationalist POV on this article against all attempts to establish NPOV- which he insists is a British POV. The aim of his constant reverts is the infobox where he insisted on calling the Indian rebels freedom fighters and calling the war the Indian war of independance. After exact rules detailing freedom fighter being unacceptable language were shown to him he decided he was compromising by saying patriot instead despite the meaning being very similar and even more inaccurate to the subject matter.
    Dispute resolution has been tried- but when the mediator leaned my way he decided to ignore it.
    This isn't the first time he's broke the 3RR recently, just the first I've reported it, earlier incidents can be spotted easily over the past week. Additionally he was kicked for using a sock to break the rule earlier in the month and is consistanly rude to those who disagree with him. Josquius 14:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has history of persistent POV pushing including use of sock puppets. Ronnotel 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:M5891 reported by User:DCGeist (Result: No action)

    United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). M5891 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [3]

    User has edit warred on this topic on several occasions in the past. User never provides edit summaries and has not participated in Talk section recently initiated to address matter (Talk:United States#Demographics section).DCGeist 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no evidence that the user was previously warned for 3RR, or that they have continued to revert after the warning was given. I'll certainly block if I see continued reversion. --John 17:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bmg916 reported by User:SpeedyC1 (Result:page protected )

    World Wrestling Entertainment roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bmg916 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Time reported: 17:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)).[reply]


    This user has vandalizing the World Wrestling Entertainment roster page frequently.5 times in 3 hours. Above are the edits that the user has made to the World Wrestling Entertainment roster page.SpeedyC1 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that Speedy has also violated the 3 revert rule,and refuses to compromise and is repeatedly inserting wrong information. All the Wrestling Websites out there (as well as her official website have confirmed Kristal Marshall's release and Speedy is refusing to acknowledge this. While I admit to violating the 3RR and regret doing so, I would like the reviewing admin to please take note of these facts. I also don't appreciate Speedy calling my good faith edits vandalism. Thank you. Bmg916Speak 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please not also tha kristal does't have an official websit. It is just some fan claiming that he knows her.SpeedyC1 18:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Read the legal disclaimer, it's her official site... Bmg916Speak 18:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:156.34.221.137 reported by User:E tac (Result:24 hours and see E tac below)

    User is stepping out of bounds, claiming something is a concensus, which it clearly is not as I have cjecked the template talk page and tried directing the user to it and he is not responding. E tac 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Edits are to maintain the formatting as it is clearly shown in the Mariah Carey example which appears on the Template:Infobox musical artist page. A clea edit summary pointing to this has been given with each edit. E tac (talk · contribs), however has not provided any valid reason for reversion... other than to simply revert for his own pleasure. Mr. E Tac has violated 3RR on numerous article in the past hour. 156.34.221.137 23:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No I never went over 3 reverts, so you are wrong there. Also I pointed you to the talk page on the template, there is very little disscusion on the topic and NONE OF IT supports what you are claiming to be the concensus. I am not doing it for my editing pleasue but because it makes the infobox much neater and easier to read. Perhaps it is you doing it for pleasure as your claim that it is a growing concensus is ridiculous. Growing amongst who? you? Where is your proof that this in concensus, the template talk page shows quite the contrary.--E tac 23:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I find it funny you posting a warning on my talk page saying I have violated policy and need to use the talk page. I never went over 3 reverts and I added a comment on the topic to what little was on the talk page for the template you keep citing, where is your disscusion by the way since you seem to feel that you need to warn me? You made more reverts then me, not to mention you already were reported for this same thing earlier today.--E tac 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not the one claiming it is "concensus" and changing it on every article I can despite the fact that it looks like garbage so don't tell me to knock it off because I'm not the one instigating it and trying to pass it off as policy.--E tac 21:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You didn't knock it off. Bad move, that's 24 hours for both E tac and 156.34.221.137. I am confident that all the 156.34s that edit heavy metal groups are the same user or group of users and the revert limit should apply to them all. Sam Blacketer 22:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:172.163.240.204 reported by User:Chubbles (Result:No violation)

    The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172.163.240.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 17:31PM


    User posted some information about the band's charity work, along with this comment: One Middleburg man who went to Middleburg High School with Ronnie Winter, Michael Flamino, is trying to gain publicity by starting a "F**k Ronnie" slogan with his fledgling band, despite the Red Jumpsuit Apparatus' good works in fundraising for above said causes. I reverted wholesale. User restored, and I did a partial revert, keeping the bit about the charity work but removing the axegrinding. Two more reverts and here we are. Chubbles 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Naiseroder reported by User:Atari400 (Result:Warned)

    Arabization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Naiseroder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User Naiseroder continues to revert to an earlier version of this article without discussion. This earlier version of that article contains an image uploaded and inserted into the article by User Naiseroder. That image itself is very unencyclopedic in nature and a POV violation in content. In the process of trying to maintain the image's place within the article, User Naiseroder violated 3rr by committing 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. Atari400 08:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Naiseroder is a very new user, appears to be editing in good faith and was not warned or informed about the three revert rule. I will give a warning; can you please try to communicate to users and engage them in discussion rather than reporting here as your first stop? Sam Blacketer 10:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your rationale, even though I do question how new this user is. After all, how many new users commit there very first edit with an image creation and upload? Atari400 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:E tac reported by User:142.166.239.237 (Result:24 hours concurrent)

    Comment User User was issued a warning for edit warring but later blanked the warning from his/her talk page. 142.166.239.237 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:E tac reported by User:142.166.239.237 (Result:24 hours concurrent)

    Comment User User was issued a warning for edit warring but later blanked the warning from his/her talk page. 142.166.239.237 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:207.219.255.27 reported by User:Edgarde (Result: Resolved elsewhere)


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

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

    IP user is revert warring to add anti-abortion page to External links. Talk page discussion considers link a POV smear site (defamatory in a bio article, albeit not a living person). 207.219.255.27 prefers to make points via ad hominem attacks. edg ☺ ★ 23:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is resolved thru other admin intervention. / edg ☺ ★ 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Travb and User:129.71.73.248 reported by LotLE×talk (Result:24 for both)

    Guenter Lewy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Travb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 129.71.73.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [4]

    Users Travb and 129.71.73.248 have engaged in a slow, but constant revert war at Guenter Lewy over a rather trivial matter of choice of section titles. Apparently, these two users of a history of edit conflicts, and at this point, the reversions are simple one-upsmanship rather than representing any actual content disagreement at all.

    The last two dozen edits have consisted primarily of this trivial dispute. I asked the parties to discuss the matter on the article talk page, and they both carried it over to my user talk page (for no obvious reason). Both parties are engaging in this reversion just slowly enough to escape the letter of 3RR (i.e. ending at exactly 3 reversions each day), but doing the same thing every day in obvious violation of the spirit of the rule. LotLE×talk 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blech on a stick. Well, I can only admire your diligence in making such a long report. I've blocked both for 24 hours for clear edit warring. 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts per day. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Warren reported by User:Tqbf (Result: Resolved amicably)

    Mac OS X v10.5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Warren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [29]


    I agree with User:Warren's POV on these edits, regarding critiques of the OS X Leopard operating system in the press. I made a good faith effort to rewrite the section to reflect Warren's view of the critiques, which I share, and which is probably the majority view. Warren has decided that any critique that involves a "third party" or a "forum post" of any sort cannot remain in the article. These are drastic edits, and are rejecting solid work by other editors in favor of no alternative content. --- tqbf 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    These are not reverts of the same thing. Besides, Warren is reverting unsourced, unverified, and often unreliable sources. In any case, different reverts of different POV edits. This is a ridiculous ANI. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if they are reverts of the same thing, 3RR specifically states "whether involving the same or different material each time." As far as reverting unsourced, etc., that exception to 3RR only applies to BLP. I can see where he's coming from, and agree with some of what he is doing, but he is clearly violating 3RR; he also just did a 5th revert over 3 posts [34]. V-train 01:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not my read of WP:3RR, which states "whether involving the same or different material each time", and makes an exception for "unsourced" material only for WP:BLP, not for POV disputes on inanimate objects. But if I'm wrong, I'll have learned something from this, so thanks! --- tqbf 01:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently in my 10,000 or so edits I somehow forgot to read these things. Damn. I guess I'm a noob. Sorry, but Warren is an outstanding editor. His reverts are of various, unsourced POV edits. That's allowed. Give me a break lecturing me ever again about what is said in Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both myself and V-train have said repeatedly that we agree with the substance of Warren's problem. Please don't refer to me as a "POV-warrior". WP:AGF. Reverts weren't the right way to accomplish Warren's objective; he's essentially reverting NEWS.COM out an article on an OS. --- tqbf 01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, once again you're trying to teaching me Wiki-lawyering. Cool, because apparently in 10,000 edits, a few GA's and FA', tons of vandal fighting, I somehow forgot how to read. I guess my BS, MBA, MS and MD degrees were purchased online. You got me there bud. Oh, one more thing. Usually the person who feigns being violated by AGF is the one whose usually violates AGF. Just thought you should know. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please try to be civil? V-train 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to whomever, the issue's been resolved via talk pages, and editing is moving forwards. -/- Warren 02:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If, after I spent 45 minutes dredging up cites from 9 major trade press venues, my edits are not reverted by this user, I'll agree, noting that I perceive that the 3RR noticeboard posting helped end the edit war. --- tqbf 02:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this filing had absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact that you stopped trying to use sources that are unsuitable for Wikipedia made all the difference. -/- Warren 07:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ssbohio reported by User:SqueakBox (Result: Page Protected)

    Adult-child sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ssbohio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [35]


    A user of 2 years experience and many edits so he clearly knows about 3rr, SqueakBox 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) My record speaks for itself. I do not use the revert function lightly or indiscriminately. This was not editing the article, this was replacing the article with a redirect. SqueakBox attempted to delete this article at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex|AFD]], then challenged the result at DRV, where he did not prevail. Undeterred, he did some more forum shopping, held an artificially short discussion, and deleted the article, replacing it with a redirect as he originally wanted to.
    My normal procedure is to use the one-revert rule, but, in this case, an experienced editor was deleting content that the community had determined (a few days before) there was no consensus to delete. I placed a notice at the administrators' noticeboard and reverted to preserve content where there was no consensus to delete demonstrated. He's tried to delete the article [36], [37] or replace it with a redirect [38], [39], [40], [41] multiple times. In this situation, SqueakBox deleted the article as shown above, then reverted my restoration once & twice, then Thebainer came in for the third deletion. The page finally required protection. If there's no consensus to delete the page, and that lack of consensus is confirmed by a deletion review, then gaming the system by blanking the page and putting up a redirect is no more supported by consensus than deletion was. --Ssbohio 06:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This case is messy... Article was AFD'd (no consensus defaulting to keep), followed by a DRV (endorse the keep), and then was redirected less than 24 hours since a merge call was asked on the talk page. I've page-protected this for a week so discussions can take place. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 06:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Haleth reported by User:Aladdin_Zane (Result:Warned)

    Stacy Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Haleth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [42]

    Haleth kept inserting material that was uncited me, and Nikki311 told him not to do it. During this he went to my talk page and used severe vulgarity towards me. Since this time he has also been reported as a sock puppet. By me and Nikki311 she mentioned on Stacy Carter talk page for him to be reported so I did. [43] with plenty of evidence gathered. Another of the sock puppets was used on Stacy carter page today to partially revert what was being disputed yesterday, now making 5 reverts in 24 hours.Aladdin Zane 13:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually he has editted in the past 24 hours, He was just using a sock puppet as noted here [44]Aladdin Zane 17:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is unproved as yet. Sam Blacketer 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I know it is still waiting review, there are a few other ahead of it. But once you go over the evidence there is no doubt it is the same person. BTW I'm not disagreeing with the warning, as he hasn't had one before. Just pointing out that he progressed to Sock puppetry after I warned him, instead of using Haleth a 5th time. Thanks for checking into thingsAladdin Zane 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.116.31.203 reported by User:Ultraexactzz (Result:24 hours)

    Salamander Sam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.116.31.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 10:10


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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 10:11

    Anon user began to place CSD tags on multiple webcomic articles, including Salamander Sam, Shonen Punk!, Pandect, Dresden Codak, and at least two dozen others. The claimed CSD reasoning was WP:CSD#A7, which claims no assertion of notability. The tag was reverted. , as Salamander Sam does indeed claim notability. The user repeatedly reverted the removal, rather than initiating an Afd process or discussing the issue on the article's talk page. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also see [45],[46], and [47] Spryde 14:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious as how salamander sam claims notability? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    not the issue. This is a violation of process, not a content based conflict. --Martin Wisse 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also up to 4 reverts on Perfect Storm (comic). [48] [49] [50] [51]. Ariel♥Gold 14:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, Salamander Sam does not claim notability as such, and I struck that part of my report. However, per WP:CSD: Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this; a creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add "hangon" to the page, and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page. An article where the CSD tag is removed may still be nominated for deletion via AFD. The procedural violations here are the repeated reversion of the disputed CSD tag. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dbachmann reported by User:Taharqa (Result: 24h)

    Race of ancient Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [52]

    First of an initial series of edits/reverts that disrupted the page at the expense of consensus, moving around the format, subsequent edits reworded and changed material, but this was the initial revert.

    ^^Same, simply reverting back to his revision

    ^^Same

    • 4th revert:

    13:42, 31 October 2007

    ^^Same


    The main problem I have is that this user was just recently reported for this exact same violation, yet it was ignored and he continues to violate and edit war with everybody.[53]

    ^These are clear violations, though curiously, other have been blocked for much less concerning that page as it is a very very contentious page. Several users have complained about him and his lack of professionalism as a supposed senior member. He continues to edit war, and then takes it to people's talk pages to personally attack[54], while imposing his pov and unjustifiably threatening sanction because no one agrees with it. Beyond abusive and immature. He has also been warned on his talk page,[55] and there are other misallaneous complaint about his abusive behavior as well. In any event, this all boils down to this one case that I'm reporting though which demonstrates that h's clearly violated policy ad 3RR..Taharqa 16:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rimerimea reported by User:SparsityProblem (Result:24 hours)

    Atefah Sahaaleh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rimerimea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

    User reverted edits to article multiple times, and has been given ample warning. I explained that YouTube was not a reliable source, but user continues to restore some dubious claims with a YouTube link as the only source, despite being reverted by the bot that reverts such links. SparsityProblem 01:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Clear case; reverting many times, not just to add the problem YouTube link, and after being warned and given helpful advice. This user, although new, was being disruptive and so I have blocked for 24 hours. Sam Blacketer 09:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:219.90.242.174 reported by User:Irishguy (Result:Page protected; 31 hours)

    Serge Gainsbourg‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 219.90.242.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also using 122.49.166.14. Harassing other editors while edit warring. IrishGuy talk 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Irishguy vandalised that article repeatedly, and refused to answer questions as to why, or use the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.167.51 (talk • contribs)

    User:Gscshoyru reported by User:219.90.167.51 (Result:No violation)

    Serge Gainsbourg‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gscshoyru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The reverts are removing information that has a valid source. Refusing to provide a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.167.51 (talk • contribs)

    You have not provided diffs, so this report is malformed. But, I have only made three, so am not in violation of the rule, and you, on the other hand, have -- see above report. Gscshoyru 03:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GB-UK-BI reported by User:TheGerm (Result:Indefinite)

    Aero L-159 Alca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GB-UK-BI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 19:10

    It looks like User:GB-UK-BI is changing ID often and has been blocked on other IP addresses... Read comments from User:Noclador on User talk:GB-UK-BI Germ 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sfacets reported by User:Will Beback (Result:No action)

    Sahaja Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sfacets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted the edits mentionned. Feel free to mention if I missed any and I will fix them. Thx. Sfacets 04:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    According to this current/diff [58] there are still added materials that you reverted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocks under the three revert rule are preventive, to prevent disruption. Even if there are individual sentences in the article which may not be present (I don't have the time to check in detail), the fact that Sfacets has self-reverted and is clearly aware of the need to avoid disruption, is a substantial argument against a block. All concerned are encouraged to engage in civil discourse on the article talk page. Sam Blacketer 10:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Steve Dufour reported by User:Anynobody (Result:No action)

    Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Steve Dufour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Dufour has a history of trying to minimize this article. Lately he has been insisiting that the article be written his way despite previous conversations on the articles talk page already explaining the rationale behind the information he doesn't like. Anynobody 05:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This concerns negative material with the intention to attack a living person. On the Usenet site alt.religion.scientology there has been a long-going campaign of harassment against Barbara Schwarz, the subject of the article, with the intention of driving her to commit suicide. This is the reason I feel so strongly about this article. I would prefer not to edit it anymore myself; but if no one else will work to keep it an encyclopedia article, not an attack, I will continue until I am kicked off of Wikipedia. Steve Dufour 06:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    With all due respect, this is not alt.religion.scientology though and the article didn't say anything that wasn't in a WP:RS. Anynobody 06:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If the article remains on a respectful level toward its subject I will not object. Steve Dufour 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Except that your idea of respect ignores reliable sources and favors your personal preferences. I really hate having to point this out, but you're essentially saying you have no intention of abdidng by policies, guidelines and even consensus to do what you think is "right"... I will continue until I am kicked off of Wikipedia. Anynobody 06:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • If the claimed WP:BLP exemption is disregarded, then there would be a technical three revert rule violation. The application of BLP is difficult and questionable but because Steve Dufour is clearly acting in good faith in believing it is applicable, to block him for disruption would be wrong. Hence I do not propose to take any action about the 3RR report. Further work should be taken to make sure the article complies with BLP policy because this is a controversial biography subject who has antagonised one group of people while being perceived as a crank by others; such a situation means that both groups start off with some reason to include questionable material. Sam Blacketer 11:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Sam. I will take a break from editing the article for a while and see what happens with it. Steve Dufour 11:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Steven Andrew Miller reported by User:Eleemosynary (Result:24 hours)

    Michael Mukasey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Steven Andrew Miller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [59]

    User:Steven Andrew Miller is conducting an edit war on the Mukasey page, similar to one he is also conducting on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page. (Please see his earlier 3RR violation report, by another user, above.) He has been warned about edit warring in the past, but has deleted the warnings as "spam," here. He's also been blocked for 3RR[60], so he's well aware of the policy. --Eleemosynary 09:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Simon D M reported by User:Sfacets (Result:protected)

    Sahaja Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Simon D M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [61]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [62]

    User has reverted more than 3 4 5 times over 24 hours, despite a warning being given. Note that the submitter also inadvertently transgressed, however self-reverted after warning.Sfacets 11:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, as the note explains^. Sfacets 13:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Protected the page for 48 hours. I don't care about good intentions/bad intentions here, too many reverts recently. More discussion required. Protection will, hopefully, force it. Mangojuicetalk 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Piotrus reported by User:M0RD00R (Result:warning)

    For some time user:Piotrus engages in edit war by reverting full or parts of text, while 3RR rule clearly states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. So violation is obvious. M0RD00R 16:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This particular list of edits doesn't look like a violation to me, except in the most legalistic reading. I left Piotrus a note reminding him about 3RR; that should be sufficient. Mangojuicetalk 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3 times referenced info was removed, 5th revert is removal of the reference that was added upon request. So nothing legalistic but pure edit warring case and a breach of 3RR IMO. M0RD00R 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1st revert is not a revert - it is a normal edit; MORDOOR claims it was a revert to this revision which is obviously not true. I have simply removed a dubious claim that as discussion at related talk pages show is not supported by reliable source, a claim that has not been ever challenged since it was added a few weeks ago to the article (which, accidentally, I expanded to the GA-level).
    Reverts 3rd and 4th are one revert - I could have just as well made one edit instead of two and removed both the dubious claim and the tag in a single edit; I did two to provide a better WP:SUMMARY in my edits. To claim that hence I broke the 3RR is obviously wikilawyering.
    I would also point out that MORDOOR has not contributed to this article in the past; his revert warring there at present - which seems to be his only contribution in the past day or so - borders on WP:STALKing my person. Further, MOORDOR revert warring is a violation of WP:V and WP:RS - he is removing a proper attribution to Zhylenko, instead replacing it with some non-English and less reliable website. Such disruptive behavior certainly should warrant a warning.
    -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unapologetic stance of Piotrus shows that he did learn the lesson, and in this situation I don't think that mere warning is enough. I have no intention to respond to off-topic remarks breaching WP:AGF and WP:NPA and will not get dragged into content discussion here because this is not the right place for such discussions. M0RD00R 18:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Moldopodo reported by User:Moldorubo (Result: Page protected )

    Moldova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    He was warned before. Moldorubo 17:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring; page protected. --Haemo 18:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anittas reported by User:Moldopodo (Result: Page protected )

    Moldova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anittas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    He was warned before. Moldopodo 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user Moldopodo should be blocked in the first place. He started the edit wars and now he wanted also to hide this thing. He should be blocked at least for one month..Moldojuicetalk 18:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad behavior all around. Page protected. --Haemo 18:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Navnløs reported by User:216.21.150.44 (Result: No action)

    Comment User has made a claim on both their user page and their talk page that they intend to revert any changes to the Iron Maiden article (along with many others) if anyone changes the coded line breaks in the artist infobox for the standard comma delimiter. See User talk:Navnløs#TO_WHOM_IT_MAY_CONCERN-ABOUT_LINE_BREAKS_VS._COMMA_BREAKS: for the users pre-planned edit war. 216.21.150.44 23:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The user had not been warned so no action has been taken yet. They have now been warned, so any further violation will result in a block. TigerShark 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:220.255.115.209 reported by User:Inertia Tensor (Result: 24 hours by Chaser)

    Comment Mainly the first sentence "Waterboarding is XXXXXXX". Multiple parties are edit waring in Waterboarding, however I am only reporting one who provoked it by making massive edits to a seriously hot article without participating in talk at all until afterwards. User:89.100.48.103 is the other party blasting 3RR to hell. I feel this is a particularly serious example, as user User:220.255.115.209 did not engage in talk until 01:30, and only when the other demanded he work there. As this was a hot potato article, the talk page asks for comment and discussion before engaging in major activity which he ignored. As this is a IP war, a 24 hour semi-protection on Waterboarding may help in case of other problems and escalations, saving us having to checkusr. 7th revert was after a long over due warning. Inertia Tensor 02:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Couillaud reported by User:YoSoyGuapo (Result: Warning)

    Talk:King's Daughters (edit | [[Talk:Talk:King's Daughters|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Couillaud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Not a new user but was given a warning 05:11, 2 November 2007 Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Uses WP:OWN and censoring others opinions which is seen on a talk page. Also has a history of deleting others opinion he isn't fond of. YoSoyGuapo 05:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply

    YoSoyGuapo is exaggerating the situation. I have been forced to revert vandalism that he placed there as personal harassment against me.
    This article has been the subject of vandalism by an anonymous user before, and Administrator WKnight94 put up a warning that he would block that user's range if he continued to troll. YoSoyGuapo has been continuing the same type of vandalism, and keeps trying to act as if he's really contributing something.
    The original troll made ethnically insensitive remarks calling French Canadian women prostitutes (a false claim, and simply his opinion); he was just trying to stir trouble. YoSoyGuapo is adding his because he found that I am one of the editors who built and maintain this article. He and I have had a dispute over the article on Josh Gibson (where he falsely accused me of deliberately "downplaying the achievements of minorities" (and untrue and frankly insulting claim).
    The article is "Daughters of the King", about French women of childbearing age who were recruited by the royal French government to emigrate to Canada and help populate the new colony. YoSoyGuapo googled "kings daughters prostitutes" and found an absolutely unrelated article about prostitutes in Namibia (in this century) who refer to themselves by the same sobriquet; their name does not originate from the French Daughters of the King (nor anything else similar). There is no article on this group yet placed in Wikipedia, and no need for a disambiguation page. All the same, YoSoyGuapo keeps placing arguments into the discussion page that violate the guidelines for discussion pages, and keeps adding this irrelevant section on Nambia (which he has misspelled more than once).
    As far as his claim that I have "a history of deleting others opinion he isn't fond of", that is not true. I deleted comments that were racist and irrelevant because two particular editors (one anonymous, the other YoSoyGuapo), instead of using the discussion page to discuss facts or sources of the article are just using it to attack ideas and people. He seems to not understand the full purpose of the discussion page.
    I am filing a complaint elsewhere about his vandalism of my own talk page; I cleared it recently to clean up old conversation, and he put his own personal "warning" to me on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Couillaud (talk • contribs)
    I'm giving Couillaud a warning. If the user in question is not banned, removing their comments is not appropriate. Although you may remove comments from your talk page, it is not the normal practice on article discussion pages. The requests of YoSoyGuapo are baseless and easily dismissed by Wikipedia policy, there is no need to actually remove them, though. Mangojuicetalk 14:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Grant.alpaugh reported by VanTucky Talk (Result: 24h)

    • Three revert rule violation on

    Nike, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Grant.alpaugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 07:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC) This user has been warned and given links to appropriate policy by multiple users (see article and user talk). VanTucky Talk 07:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. VanTucky, next time please post diffs, not old versions, and include the previous version reverted to. Mangojuicetalk 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, it was pretty late on the west coast. VanTucky Talk 17:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PDAWSON3, User:204.210.195.250, and User:209.152.49.214 reported by User:Strothra (Result: Page protected)

    Spiro Agnew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). PDAWSON3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Editor is utilizing sockpuppets to evade 3RR and to edit war over the insertion of original research. Strothra 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page has been semi-protected for a time. CitiCat ♫ 17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Citicat, please remember to fill in the header, indicating the result of your consideration of the report :) it makes things much easier! Anthøny 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Three-revert rule violation on the part of unregistered user in page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_in_a_Box Icarus of old 00:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Keyblade626 reported by User:Someguy0830 (Result: page protected)

    Sasuke Uchiha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Keyblade626 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user seems hell-bent on including what they think is an affiliation the three people have, the only rationale being "read the manga correctly". The last edits are also restoring vandalism, which I've warned the user about. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Three-day long edit war; I'm not blocking the both of you because I'm in a good mood. Figure it out on the talk page. east.718 at 02:40, 11/3/2007

    User:Shshshsh reported by User:Lahiru_k (Result: 24 hours)

    Shahrukh Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shshshsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have discussed things on the articles' talk page and FAc respectively. This user didn't. Please see that. We have to discuss before doing something, they didn't, they just tagged. It's unfair. Shahid • Talk2me 09:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cecrops reported by User:davidpdx (Result: blocked elsewhere )

    User talk:davidpdx (edit | [[Talk:user talk:davidpdx|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:Cecrops (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [75]


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

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

    I strongly believe this person is the same person as User: 69.132.96.215 and the person has reverted my talk page as well as another users. I ask that this person be banned ASAP. Davidpdx 12:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, he got blocked already. Davidpdx 12:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (result: 48h)

    First Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bytebear, a non-LDS editor and recent editor to the article has tried to remove some of the overly-detailed, POV historical interpretation from the intro of the article. User:John Foxe insists that these are historical facts that must be included, and reverts to his preferred version without any discussion for consensus or compromise wording. Even though Bytebear is not LDS and a new observer to the ongoing dispute at the article, John Foxe still accuses Bytebear and everyone else that doesn't agree with his POV of pushing a Mormon POV and summarily reverts any of their edits. While the fourth revert in this case came only one minute past the 24 hour mark, this IMO is gaming the system, something that John has previously been called on [81] and more evidence of John's ownership of the article. --FyzixFighter 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours. east.718 at 17:44, 11/3/2007

    User:A_Man_In_Black reported by User:MalikCarr (Result: pages protected)

    MSM-10 Zock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and RX-178 Gundam Mk-II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A_Man_In_Black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • Mk-II: 01:46
    • Zock: 01:36

    Mk-II

    • 1st revert: 00:44
    • 2nd revert: 00:45 (may not be revert technically; see two following edits in page history)
    • 3rd revert: 00:49
    • 4th revert: 01:46
    • 5th revert: 01:47

    Zock

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

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

    • Diff: Unnecessary, user is an administrator and has been blocked for 3RRV before.

    User:A Man In Black is expanding current months old revert/edit war over articles currently protected (see MSN-02 Zeong and MSN-04 Sazabi) to others I have contributed significantly to. RfM currently underway to attempt to resolve disputes, but user continues edit war regardless. 3RRV by reverting edits contributed by User:Jtrainor. MalikCarr 02:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum: Pages are currently protected with contested/3RR violating version by User:A Man In Black; those of us in established consensus would obviously like to see something done about this. MalikCarr 03:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pages protected by East718. If other articles are similarly affected after this report, let us know. - KrakatoaKatie 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably dont need to point out that User:MalikCarr initiated the revert wars and has also violated 3rr, but I will anyway.4.158.222.133 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping to see something done about the protected versions, which are utter garbage, but I won't overstep myself at this juncture. MalikCarr 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We're just here to stop the bloodshed, and we always protect the wrong version. Work it out, guys. - KrakatoaKatie 06:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahah, I'll keep that in mind in the future. MalikCarr 08:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:71.193.244.183 reported by User:jmegill (Result: 24h)

    Mike Huckabee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.193.244.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    First Previous Deletion warning: [82] Second Previous Deletion warning: 22:48, 3 November 2007 Diff of 3RR warning: 20:42, 4 November 2007

    Anonymous editor persists in the deletion of "Janet Huckabee" subsection which includes sourced information. Also persists in the deletion of sourced information in the Fiscal Policy section. The Fiscal Policy section is the result of many lengthy discussions on the talk page. Jmegill 21:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours for the anon. east.718 at 22:33, 11/4/2007

    User:Sfacets reported by User:Will Beback (Result: 72h)

    Sahaja Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sfacets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • User has been blocked for 3RR several times.

    The article was protected after a string of reverts last week.#User:Sfacets reported by User:Will Beback (Result:No action) As soon as the protection expired Sfacets began reverting again. He is an experienced editor and is exercising ownership over the article. A new user, user:Simon D M, has also been reverting but Sfacets has been much worse. I warned Sfacets that he was over the 3RR limit and asked him to undo some reverts but he hasn't done so.[83] He labels the other editor's contributions as "vandalism" and believes he has the right to revert them because they are not discussed on the talk page.[84] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    72 hours for Sfacets, as he already has three blocks for 3RR. east.718 at 22:37, 11/4/2007

    User:EdChampion reported by User:secisek (Result:48 hours)

    Edmund the Martyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). EdChampion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [85]


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

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

    Disruptive SPA returns after a month to attack the article. Edmund the Martyr. Consensus exists and it is not on his side. Rude and almost threatening on Talk Page. Article is GA. Violator uses sock puppets, too. I believe he is already banned from WP with several socks. Article may need partial protection, as well. SECisek 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not true. There has been NO attack. EVERY CHANGE HAS A CITATION/REFERENCE. I have contributed to this article on numerous accassions. SECisek is trying to impose a POV and prevent my additions - even though I have provided FULL citations - this is against the WIKI spirit. Neither have I been banned. EdChampion 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a dispute tag to this article. EdChampion 23:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The report is incomplete but I looked at the article history and it is clearly a violation; once EdChampion realised he had his third revert, he logged out and used an IP to do the fourth. For that, and the POV pushing, 48 hours. Sam Blacketer 23:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:UBeR reported by User:callmebc (Result: No violation)

    Global Warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UBeR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

    A short explanation of the incident. Callmebc 04:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC) I guess the usual stuff for a "political sensitive" Wikipedia article -- lots of WP:TE and WP:UNDUE (for starters) by people with zero interest in actually improving the article, but mucho interest in pushing a political agenda. In this particular case, there is a scientific consensus regarding global warming, but the skeptics/deniers keep trying to undermine this by bringing up lists of rogue-ish scientists, few if any actually being involved in climate research. The point of course is to cast doubt on there being a genuine consensus. I recently added a ref to this Nature Magazine editorial, which rather relevantly, I do believe, addresses the consensus "issue." User:UBeR however keeps reverting it for cryptic, false and/or nonsensical reasons like the one he gives here. Apparently his idea of a "consensus" is when anyone at anytime in the past ever semi-agreed with him. That Nature Magazine is merely universally regarded at one of preeminent science journals in the world, but apparently this doesn't matter to some people, even though, I think, it fits neatly this Wikipedia guideline.[reply]

    Basic time telling logic tells me there can't be 24 hours or less over a span of three days. Your 3RR report is null and could possibly be considered further incivil behavior that you've displayed over the last several days, as well as a failure to assume good faith. (Needless to say, this user has already been warned for inappropriate accusations of 3RR). In any case, content disputes should not be discussed here, per the very first and bold sentence at the top (contrast with Callmebc's diatribe above), so suffice it to say Callmebc is wrong regarding his account above. ~ UBeR 05:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to see here. east.718 at 07:21, 11/5/2007
    Hmmm....I do believe I may have to escalate this issue at some point -- if someone had done his/her homework, he/she perhaps would have noticed that these last 4 reverts by User:UBeR are only the latest in a long, LONG series of essentially the same reverts there are evidently part of a continual effort to block any major updates or improvements to the politically sensitive global warming article and its related wikis. And according the general Wiki 3RR policy, "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks." But, whatever, I guess there are other ways to deal with these problems.... -BC aka Callmebc 13:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to look at dispute resolution, e.g. with an RfC either on the topic or on the users involved. This is clearly not a case for WP:3RR, and your warning of an long-established user is entirely unnecessary. --Stephan Schulz 13:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm, did anyone actually check the times on the reverts? UBeR did 3 reverts in less than 24 hrs, I gave him a warning, and he did his 4th a day later (with identical reverts conveniently made in between by a self-professed global warmin skeptic under the name User:Rossnixon.) And this is on an edit item he's been WP:TE about many times in the past. You know, it's not really my job to police or in general deal with this sort of stuff beyond trying to bring it to the attention of the proper authorities. Whatever.... -BC aka Callmebc 16:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummmm...if you think there are "proper authorities", you don't get the Wiki idea. We mobsters try to enforce a minimum set of rules, not to decide on content questions. Your best tools are convincing arguments. Arguments that don't convince are not convincing. Claims of tendentious editing are misplaced here (and not exactly fitting - I'll be the second to acknowledge that UBeR can a PITA, but his obsessive demand for exact/pedantic/anal sources is not limited to one side of the debate). --Stephan Schulz 16:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't chronic 3RR-bending sorta, kinda a form of WP:TE? And are you saying that things like, oh, say this particular page for example, are just for Show & Tell and not really meant for calling attention to issues and situations suitable, in theory at least, for policing/janitorial activities by admins? And how is UBeR's objection to a Nature magazine ref related to an "obsessive demand for exact/pedantic/anal sources"? As I kind of pointed out before, his history of global warming edits/reverts, especially in regards to that whole RFC business on "Solar Variation," does not appear to be of one actually interested in science and in making the article accurate, up to date, balanced, and clear, especially for people coming to Wikipedia's Global Warming article for knowledge and understanding. Perhaps it's that most admins don't want to be considered the proper authorities, but, as I've said way too many times, whatever.... -BC aka Callmebc 18:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not bending anything. I keep the article clean from trash. Like I said on the talk page, the problem isn't the source at all. It's your poor sentence. But, as I've clearly pointed out above (and this page makes very clear) this isn't the place for content dispute. I never broke 3RR, unless there's some way to bend 24 hours into a 3 calender day period. There's no violation, as the admins have stated, so deal with the facts. You've already been warned for meritless 3RR warnings, as stated above and below, so I suggest you take more consideration before the next time you choose to falsely accuse me of having broken rules, which you are keen on doing. On that note, if you have a sockpuppet accusation, this is not the place, and I've already warned you of the inappropriate places to make such accusations. But also consider that baseless accusations are not regarded well here. And, for your information, all of your descriptions of me regarding Wikipedia are clearly incorrect, and I really do suggest you stop spewing your tosh about me. It's not acceptable. ~ UBeR 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Participants should be aware that User:Callmebc has a history of frivolous 3RR reports (SEWilco diff) and warnings (3RR for 1 rv). He also thinks these articles are part of some sort of war [86], has stated an intent to cover articles with changes [87], and expects to break 3RR a lot more [88]. He also claims WP record manipulation at User talk:Charles Matthews#SEWilco - Revising quotes and diffs to hide a lie. (SEWilco 19:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Yeah, SEWilco is another "helpful" editor (and I was dead on about the diff history manipulation) very, very much like UBeR, and whom I likewise haven't been getting much help dealing with by admins. Go check out the discussion in this ANI complaint by SEWilco about a supposed "frivolous" 3RR warning I made. Note especially my description and links regarding the utterly bizarre "Mother's Day" business, and ask yourselves why this sort of nonsense is allowed to go on, and why are people like SEWilco and UBeR are allowed to obstruct with impunity, to the point that correcting even blatent, demonstrable nonsense escalates into a massive revert war. And speaking of nonsense, go check out UBeR's last little Global Warming revert. Also check out this other recent revert of his that he described as "clean up" in his "edit summary": what he actually did was put back discredited nonsense about "A different hypothesis is that variations in solar output, possibly amplified by cloud seeding via galactic cosmic rays, may have contributed to recent warming" and removed refs to a genuine scientific study showing that the sun has nothing to do with current global warming cycle.
    If you guy really don't want to deal with stuff like this, well...whatever.... I'm done here. BC aka Callmebc 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the place, as you've been told probably about a half dozen times. But to defend myself, the cleanup is simply some maneuvering of paragraphs and sentences, the addition of a sentence that was deleted by Callmbc for no apparent reason, and a few word changes. No references were deleted, no sentences were deleted, and no major content was changed. Lies and hypocrisy do little to get you anywhere in Wikipedia... ~ UBeR 01:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GundamsRus reported by User:MalikCarr (Result: )

    Psyco Gundam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GundamsRus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 12:25


    Reverts sometimes spread out over multiple edits; end content still the same and still within 24 hours

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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 00:43 (user has been reported for 3RRV before while editing anonymously: see here.

    Same user is still engaging in WP:POINT campaign over every Gundam-related article I edit. Page is currently protected for 24 hours, but I see no reason why this will stop then. This user account, GundamsRus (talk · contribs), is a sockpuppet of the anonymous addresses listed at the above AN/I report, and has made very little contributions outside trawling my user page. Article Psyco Gundam was created and published by me less than an hour before this user found it and began making nonconstructive and unwarranted edits. Can something be done about this? MalikCarr 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see the page has already been protected, but GundamsRus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) smells like a sockpuppet... hmm... I'm going to leave this one to the discretion of a fellow admin. east.718 at 22:36, 11/5/2007
    Point of information MalikCarr calls ANY edits to 'his' pages as " nonconstructive and unwarranted "GundamsRus 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saguy1982 reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result: Page sprotected)

    Dir en grey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Saguy1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated content removal, including citations and without a talk page consensus. Reverts 3-5 were performed without any intermediate edits by other editors, yet individually undo previous editing of that day by other users. The timing of the 3RR warning is not ideal, but was also only placed as a formality, given that several editors have already voiced the suspicion, that the editor in question is a sock-puppet of Jun kaneko (talk · contribs), who was previously blocked for 3RR violations and block evasion (see a related discussion at WP:ANI for details). At the very least, "Sakaguy1982" has been a single-purpose account so far and the user behind it knows a great deal of Wikipedia policy and procedure and participated in aforementioned discussion, were 3RR violations were mentioned (in connection with the suspected sock-puppetry). - Cyrus XIII 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll stay away from this one, but there's several threads on WP:AN/I about this. east.718 at 03:45, 11/6/2007

    Page sprotected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

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

===[[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: )===
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

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

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~



<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=169536570"