Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jossi (talk | contribs)
72,880 edits
Line 804: Line 804:


: I have requested non-involved admins to look at the possibility of page protection, if that would be helpful, at [[WP:RFPP]] [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
: I have requested non-involved admins to look at the possibility of page protection, if that would be helpful, at [[WP:RFPP]] [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Prem Rawat article has been the subject of vigorous editing since The Register article. [[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] started it off [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=189984883&oldid=189956902] by reverting to a 12 month old version that was 25,000 bytes different from the article that had been stable for months. He was reverted by other editors. Since then he has been cautioned by several editors but seems intent on imposing his view. But on 12 February 2008 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190927690&oldid=190923935] he again reverted to the 12 months old article and eliminated the work of a dozen editors. In this 3RR case [[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] inserted some material into the lede out of order that creates a false impression. All the sources that back the sentence refer to the 70s but [[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] insists that it should be placed in the 2001+ section. Since this is a BLP it is important that we "get it right". I didn't revert nor did I remove or add material in the first three edits that [[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] mentions, I relocated the sentence to its correct chronological place. The sentence is a summary of quotes about the 70s and that needs to be clear, either by its place in the lede or by inclusion in the text. Since Francis keeps reverted my chronological edit, I added the text "In the 70s" to the sentence which was my 4th edit. This article is a BLP and needs to be" written conservatively". Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. I interpret the above to include, well sourced material that is deliberately placed out of chronology to create a false impression. Francis has made only two edits in the last 24 hours and they are two total reverts eliminating the work of six other editors.[[User:Momento|Momento]] ([[User talk:Momento|talk]]) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Francis's three.
*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=190927690&oldid=19092393516:34, 12 February 2008] A unilateral revert of 25,000 bytes
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=191176182&oldid=191104959 17:36, 13 February 2008]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=191221086&oldid=191217973 20:18, 13 February 2008]


== Example ==
== Example ==

Revision as of 22:48, 13 February 2008

Template:Moveprotected

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 dealt with 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. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:Soulscanner and reported by User:G2bambino (Result: )

    Dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Soulscanner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:47, 7 February 2008

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]
    • 1st revert: [2] 04:40, 6 February 2008
    • 2nd revert: [3] 03:20, 7 February 2008
    • 3rd revert: [4] 03:37, 7 February 2008
    • 4th revert: [5] 03:47, 7 February 2008
    • 5th revert: [6] 04:01, 7 February 2008
    • Diff of 3RR warning: No warning issued, but as this user reported User:Quizimodo above, he's obviously aware of 3RR.

    A short explanation of the incident. Restoring original complaint by User:G2bambino. I'd unintentionally deleted it as a duplicate upon posting the complaint below. Consequently, no administrator has viewed this. I'm hoping all accept these restorations. They are all done in good faith to set the record straight on a complicated set of mishaps. --soulscanner (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:G2bambino reported by User:Soulscanner (Result:See above)

    Dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Soulscanner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:47, 7 February 2008

    • Previous version reverted to: [7]
    • 1st revert: [8] 04:40, 6 February 2008
    • 2nd revert: [9] 03:20, 7 February 2008
    • 3rd revert: [10] 03:37, 7 February 2008
    • 4th revert: [11] 03:47, 7 February 2008
    • 5th revert: [12] 04:01, 7 February 2008
    • Diff of 3RR warning: No warning issued, but as this user reported User:Quizimodo above, he's obviously aware of 3RR.

    A short explanation of the incident. A brief inspection of User:G2bambino and User:Quizimodo talk page histories, and patterns of reverts above show that two cited editors are colluding to remove neutrality tags placed by me on that page. I've already pointed them to Wiki's policy that if there is a dispute about neutrality tags on an article, there probably is a neutrality issue. [User:Quizimodo]]'s pledge above seems somewhat disingenuous given this context. Again, tags in question identify pertinent claims and sources currently being debated by various editors at relevant talk page. Soulscanner (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Quizimodo hasn't contacted me for months. Since he did yesterday, I've taken one look at Dominion, and offered a comment at talk. That's hardly collusion; perhaps you need to tone down the conspiracy theories? Regardless, I believe you've violated 3RR, in the process of an antagonistic edit war, no less. But, we shall let more experienced people be the judge. --G2bambino (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Folded into the above report. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Later protected for a week by me. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked G2bambino for doing this, which is completely out of order. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should most certainly think not. --G2bambino (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. It arose from another user and me taking edits out of conflict, and G2bambino was not out of order. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying, Stifle. --G2bambino (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    G2bambino acted in good faith when he switched the names, but they still needed to be switched back. I've taken the liberty of restoring the original posting here. The incident report on this error is here --soulscanner (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Soulscanner reported by User:G2bambino (Result: No violation)

    Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Soulscanner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [13] 15:30, 8 February 2008 (image removed; tag placed)
    • 1st revert: [14] 18:18, 8 February 2008 (tag inserted again)
    • 2nd revert: [15] 19:02, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)
    • 3rd revert: [16] 20:52, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)
    • 4th revert: [17] 21:57, 8 February 2008 (image removed again)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [18] 22:25, 8 February 2008

    User has been quite adamant to keep a "dubious" tag in the lead of the article; then took up the case of removing the image as well. The user was given the chance to self-revert, but did not, arguing that "there's no 3RR on removing a non-permissable photos." The user was reported yesterday for a similar incident at Dominion. I was not able to file this report until this morning due to earlier computer issues last evening. G2bambino (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: No violation. It does not appear that Soulscanner reverted more than three times (the first reported revert is different to the last three). Although a continuation of this could warrant a block, even without a technical violation, such a block would not be appropriate now. TigerShark (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As in another case you handled below, any four reverts on the same page constitute a violation even if the user is not repeating the same action. This particular report is rather stale now since the user has not edited in over 24 hours (call it time served), but this is an important distinction to be aware of. --B (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, on a very strict interpretation of 3RR that could indeed be viewed as the first of four reverts, but achieving the goal of the policy is the aim here and the goal of the policy is to avoid edit warring not to actually prevent more than 3 reverts. The first revert is sufficiently unrelated to the other that I cannot interpret this as edit warring. TigerShark (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lest anyone looking at this decide to block the user, I took a look at the particular edits in question. Soulscanner was removing an image that flagrantly violates our non-free content policy, which is exempt from revert limitations. So regardless of anything else, this is not a violation. --B (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For good measure I have deleted the image as its clearly a copy vio. I have linked the original license in the deletion summary and this clearly is neither fully free nor suitable for GFDL. As the image isn't being used in an article about the subject it clearly cannot be used under fair use. Spartaz Humbug! 08:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is noteworthy that the filer of this report, G2bambino, (a) had lately been let out of a two-week block for 3RR violation and edit-warring, on the condition that he keep to "1RR" (one revert within 24 hours on any given article) for the rest of the two-week span; and (b) broke that pledge in this business, by reverting the image's deletion twice in one day:

    User:Hyperbole reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 24 hrs)

    Scientific inquiries into chiropractic care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hyperbole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Continues to edit war after warning. In addition, should be warned for personal attacks.. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: I cannot see a 3RR violation here, as the first edit listed above is unrelated to the last three. TigerShark (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not touching this one with a 10' pole, but 3RR applies to ANY reverts or partial on the same page, not merely repeating the same action. --B (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, correct. The problem: I'm not seeing how the first one is a revert; could someone show what it's reverting? Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing anything is at least a partial revert (3RR applies to any revert, in whole or in part). Someone must have added the tag at some point and removing that tag is a revert. --B (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_chiropractic_care&diff=next&oldid=189411588 Original edit by QuackGuru adding POV tag. Quack Guru 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, yes, it looks like there is a violation here. I really have to go AFK now, so I can't finish this, but I'd support a block, especially if TigerShark consents (sorry not to take action myself, but family calls). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, on a very strict interpretation of 3RR that could indeed be viewed as the first of four reverts, but achieving the goal of the policy is the aim here and the goal of the policy is to avoid edit warring not to actually prevent more than 3 reverts. The first revert is sufficiently unrelated to the other that I cannot interpret this as edit warring. TigerShark (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A "strict interpretation"? It's the only interpretation. The first paragraph of WP:3RR says, "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." That's pretty clear. Under the policy, you do have the discretion to (a) block Hyperbole up to 24 hours, (b) block both users, (c) protect the page, or (d) warn one or both users. You've chosen a solution without blocking and that's fine ... but the fact that 3RR applies to any four reverts is not an obscure technicality. --B (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there is discretion here, as with any policy the goal is key. If somebody had incorrectly changed the spelling of a word and the user changed it back, along with three other reverts, would the goal of 3RR be achieved by blocking that user? There may be a time when admins are replaced by bots that blindly follow the criteria, but until then we have to apply common sense as to what the wording of the policy is trying to convey. You have only picked out one paragraph from the policy, rather than the whole wording and therefore taken it out of context. TigerShark (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [19][20] The reverts continue! Quack Guru 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first diff you gave was a removal of a link to Citizendium. No way in heck is that an acceptable source - it's just Wikipedia for people who are disgruntled with Wikipedia. The second does not appear to be a revert. --B (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours for continued edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Luke4545 reported by User:SmartisSexy (Result: No additional action)

    Catherine Deneuve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Luke4545 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported:11:14pm 06:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [21]


    This article has been locked, but regardless the user Luke4545 is guilty of 3RR as he reverted more than three times.Smartissexy (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocks are preventative, not punitive. With the article protected, there is no conceivable preventative purpose a block could serve. -- tariqabjotu 06:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though this report has been resolved, I would just like to add that the 3RR report seemed to be a bait attempt. Notice how the IP 209.244.42.82 stated after my second revert that I would be reported for 3RR if I attempted to revert revisions again that were already deemed unconstructive by other users and bots (as evidenced by their own reverts), and then posted the same message again to seemingly bait me into reverting a fourth time. I tried to explain that the reverts by the IP 67.11.187.178 (which appears to be the user Smartissexy) were not viewed as being constructive, which once again, was evidenced by other users and bots reverting the edits by 67.11.187.178. Anyway, I don't want this to turn into some in-depth fight, but I thought I should present my case on the matter. -- Luke4545 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Coloane reported by User:huaiwei (Result: blocked both editors for 24 hrs)

    World's busiest airports by passenger traffic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Coloane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [26]


    The said user is not new to the 3RR policy, having been blocked for 3RR violation before[31], including a past attempt to evade the block. Without waiting for a resolution to be established in the talkpages, he proceeded to repeatedly revert the edits, despite my requests for him to explain his edit[32]. This comment in particular[33] suggests to me that he is gaming the 3RR policy.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This message should be posted by me not Huaiwei himself. He keeps reverted what I edited on that page. He tried to vandalise the table by changing the flag from HKSAR to PRC without reason. And I already explained to him that the title of the table is "airport", but not "country". I personally think that he is fully aware of 3RR policy. I also mentioned this on his talk page. Coloane (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is inconsequential who makes the nomination, for both parties will be scrutinised for 3RR violation. I am certainly aware of the 3RR policy, and I do not attempt to discount my responsibility in this affair as well, as alluded in [34]. If you are going to abuse the 3RR policy just to force others to accede to your demands as what you have done in my talkpage, then a report is a must, even if it costs me my editing freedom. This is gangsterism behavior, and is not acceptable in wikipedia.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Huaiwei reverts:

    I have blocked both editors for 24 hours for edit warring. - Revolving Bugbear 15:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Karaku reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result: Karaku 48 hours, Rogue Penguin 31 hours)

    Code Lyoko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Karaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user continues to add original research to the article in spite of repeated explanations about why it is so. The user also attempted to file a Wikiquette alert against me to have me blocked, which found that the violation was in fact on his side. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Karaku has reverted at least four times today, trying to push his POV and misinterpreting a source which is questionable at best. He has been warned by at least three other editors about his disruptive style, and pointed towards policies on consensus and reliable sources. Yet he refuses to accept any of this, and insists that he is right and everyone else is wrong. He has already received a 24 hour block for edit warring and has not changed his ways. Harry the Dog (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to make a comment- I'm rving it back to the proper version. I have explained to him and TrP why that revision should stay, they won't listen. I gave sources/references. I would take it to the discussion page, but I know that doing so will only lead to more of them not listening to me and thinking the official site isn't reliable, and also, i tried doing similar things before, like on Talk:Matoran, Talk:Garage Kids, and it proved to fail at discussion. I do not deserve a block here, but If somehow I do, you might as well block TrP and Harry. -Karaku (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of you have edit warred repeatedly over the article - this is ridiculous. My count - Rogue Penguin 1, Rogue Penguin 2, Rogue Penguin 3, Rogue Penguin 4, Rogue Penguin 5, Karaku 1, Karaku 2, Karaku 3, Karaku 4, Karaku 5, Karaku 6, Karaku 7. Blocking Karaku 48 hours (as this is a second offense) and Rogue Penguin 31 hours. --B (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jcmenal reported by User:Corticopia (Result: Warning)

    Middle America (Americas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jcmenal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user continues to insinuate a minority interpretation of what comprises 'Middle America', despite source matter to the contrary, in this article and others. User is fixated on what few sources indicate, despite others. The article was previously untouched for some three weeks. Corticopia (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The "first" one is a sourced edit, then Corticopia started to revert it. JC 11:35, 10 February 2008 (PST)
    Ok ... this is worthy of WP:LAME. My decision would be to block both but honestly, is that necessary? If you are both willing to stop editing it and talk it out on the talk page, I don't think a block is needed. --B (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with B's decision, was going to do the same when my internet connection crapped on me. Writing to say I will also be watchlisting the article to be sure the edit war does stop. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:PIO (Result: No violation)

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

    Reported by: THUGCHILDz 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • This User is very disruptive and has been blocked for 3rr and several other reasonsbefore. He continues to be disruptive, and is hard to communicate with. He received several warnings on his talk page but doesn't seem to care.--THUGCHILDz 22:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined I do not view the behaviour of the editor on that article as disruptive enough to warrant a withdrawal of editing privileges. However, I do have concerns about future circumstances of edit warring that could arise, and, as such, I have issued the editor with a warning. AGK (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User: ASEOR2 (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Jacob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ASEOR2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
    • 1st revert: [45]
    • 2nd revert: [46]
    • 3rd revert: [47]
    • 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

    Plus on a number of other pages including Hyksos. Hardyplants (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: No action. Apart from the fact that the report is malformed, I can see no indication that ASEOR2 has received a warning (although there has been a large amount of talk page blanking). I have now issued a warning [48], and this user needs watching closely. TigerShark (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note that the user did receive a warning. See the bottom of this diff: [49].--Veritas (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ASEOR2&oldid=190416499 Hardyplants (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the information. I have now blocked the user for 24 hours. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Groupthink (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Groupthink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User is continuing to revert and remove sourced content:

    User has been warned about edit warring and blanking pages several times, and is aware of the 3RR policy:

    Reported by: Dreadstar † 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: That's 5 reverts in 11 minutes, 24 hours for edit warring/3RR. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Asams10 (Result: 72 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on FAMAS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Asams10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: 79.212.215.217 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • remove's a otheruses template from "his" article because he doesn't like the other article. the last time he commented his revert with "RV per WP:HAT", even though a simple otheruses-template clearly does not violate WP:HAT.
    Blocked 72 hours (this is his 4th 3RR block) --B (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bleek25 reported by User:KellyAna (Result: 48 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Las Vegas (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bleek25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: KellyAna (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Second violation in a week.

    None of the edits are the same.There is no violationBleek25 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You can't make that kind of comment. It's up to others to decide, not you, as the violator. There is a discussion started, the list has, in general, not had a description of the characters. Bleek added recent characters descriptions but not descriptions for all. When removed for consistency he reverted 4 times. He's had the same issue with other aspects of the article and been blocked before. KellyAna (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3RR does not require that all edits be identical. Any reverts or partial reverts count and from looking at these edits, you were repeatedly readding the same disputed content with little variation. KellyAna, I'm not sure why you say he can't comment. Obviously, he is allowed to comment.--B (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say he can't comment, I said he can't make that kind of comment that there's no violation. That's for an administrator to decide, not him. He can, certainly, defend himself.KellyAna (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:216.27.105.10 reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: 48 hours)

    Naveen Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.27.105.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This anonymous user has been persistently reverting the present version of Naveen Jain to what existed before a COIN {{case opened and closed weeks ago with consensus on the current version. His reverts amount to removing well referenced material and adding unverifiable content that serves only to glorify the subject of the article. (relevant ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Borderline_vandalism_on_Naveen_Jain, relevant COIN thread: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Naveen Jain) Someguy1221 (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 48 hours for 7RR, incivility, and possible conflict of interest. --B (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wndl42 reported by User:ScienceApologist (Result: protected)

    Consciousness causes collapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wndl42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Notes

    • 2nd revert reverts the removal of irrelevant sources while maintaining one intermediate edit.
    • 3rd revert reverts the lead while retaining one intermediate edit.
    • 6th revert reverts the lead while retaining four intermediate edits.

    User seems convinced that he owns this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SA, can you kindly check the diffs. I think two or three may be mal-formed and make it difficult to understand what you are reporting. Ronnotel (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm checking them now. Why can't we come up with an easier system? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Article protected for a week as there is edit warring by multiple users. Sort it out on talk. Vsmith (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for looking in Vsmith, the relevant discussions are here and a previous identical incident of SA's non-consensus massive content deletions are discussed here. Please consider restoring the article to the stable consensus state it was before SA performed this series of edits without (a) prior discussion or (b) any other efforts to establish consensus since. WNDL42 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus state that Wndl142 refers too did not in fact exist. The only consensus was that nobody wanted to do any editing of the article for fear that it would start an edit war of the type that we are now witnessing. This article has been in dispute for over a year both by myself and others. I support SA's edits as they put the content of this article in the proper context with respect to QM and science in general. Dr. Morbius (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dr. Morbius, please clarify:
    (1) re: "consensus state...did not in fact exist"...well, in fact there was a clearly documented January 10 consensus against the edits SA has been pushing here and elsewhere in talk. As regards "in dispute for over a year" and in the context of WP:CCC, please comment specifically on how you can assert that the Jan 12. consensus "did not exist".
    (2) As regards this massive and undiscussed content deletion on Feb. 10, virtually identical to the Jan 10 non-consensus edits and exactly a month later, but now with dozens of article refs (indeed the entire sections) merely blanked, refs casually deemed "mostly unrelated" by SA in edit summary, please explain specifically how this massive deletion can possibly reflect "consensus" of the many editors who worked to add them, or "consensus" of any kind?. Please comment specifically.
    (3) Please use your best efforts to add some detail as to exactly how the result of SA's edits here represent a more "proper context" than the state it had been in previously. Specifically, please. This is the 3rr noticeboard, not a place for straw polling version preferences, your support here, especially to the extent it was absent on the talk page, has absolutely nothing to to with the existence or non-existence of a consensus, either on Jan 10 or on the day of this report. The edit warring you refer to has been practiced repeatedly and persistently by SA, in fact he performed these edits immediately after his most recent 72hr block expired.
    (4) Please comment on how the above mass deletion described in (2), when repeated in identical form on Feb 11, should not be characterized as "edit warring" on SA's part.

    Finally Dr. Morbius, as you left the topic's talk page in Oct. 2007, and have been absent since, while I did not join until Jan 2008...why are you here commenting on a 3rr complaint (and making pronouncements on "consensus") involving a topic you dropped months before I joined it, regarding an editor you have no experience with? Your comments have the appearance of lacking context, and your sudden appearance here is puzzling.

    Now, as I note that SA has still not complied with Ronnote1's request above to clarify his diffs, the lack of which "make it difficult to understand what [SA] is reporting", SA's complaint takes on it's proper characterization. I've provided the diffs, where are SA's? WNDL42 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JacquesNguyen reported by User:Badagnani (Result: 72 hours)

    4 reversions in a 24-hour period (removal of Wiktionary links at Hội An) by user JacquesNguyen JacquesNguyen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User has been asked not to do this several dozen times over the past two months.

    Badagnani (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have blocked the user for 72 hours for violating 3RR, edit warring and move warring. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Koreakorea1 reported by User:Appletrees (Result: 8 hours)

    South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Koreakorea1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2008-02-11T01:08:39 (additional changing)

    Koreakorea1 (talk · contribs) and Cvcc (talk · contribs), seemingly new users begun editing the article as altering statics or blanking reliable sources. They seem to be very obsessive at rankings and technology of South Korea. They behave like a twin because their behavioral pattern are almost identical and I asked about explanation of the changes to Koreakorea1, but instead Cvcc answered to it.[50][51][52][53]

    I gave several warnings to Koreakorea1 not to blank or alter information without consensus or talking, but the user keeps ignoring.[54][55][56][57][58][59][60] After this user made disruptive edit warrings with anonymous user, 82.44.21.22 (talk · contribs), I also gave Koreakorea1 two 3RR violation warnings (in fact he already breached to 4RR), but he ignored my warning one more time and reverted the page 5th times. He insists on changing rankings because his source is the latest CIA 2008 statics, but he doesn't stick to the original source either. According to the source, South Korea ranks the 3rd largest country in Asia and 14th in the world per GDP, so his insistence even proves wrong. I think this user needs to learn community policy even if he or she were a really new user, about which I strongly doubt.--Appletrees (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This user surely knows of my notification, but again changed the article with his/her POV. Thus, he or she totally reverts 6th reverts. --Appletrees (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked for 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WikiTony reported by User:Apoc2400 (Result: 8 hours)

    Portal:Current events/2008 February 10 (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Current events/2008 February 10|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WikiTony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [61]


    User:WikiTony is continually reverts the news item

    calling it "hate speech" --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, The admin who warned me understands that because the name of the page is current events, sometimes multiple edits/reverts are required in a short time frame. After all, the information is current. Additionally, as of this writing, I am the ONLY user to discuss this matter on the talk page. I feel very much ganged up on. For my thoughts on the particular matter please see the talk page or talk page the admin who warned me (sorry i am not great at inserting all these links right now. if someone wants to, please feel free.) I consider what I did removing vandalism that is not relevant to the contemporary geopolitical affairs of the international community. I use the analogy of white supremacy groups demonstrating around the world on a particular day: Should their activites deserve merit? "protests the Church" (exact words) is not news. I am not a Scientologist, nor do i know any, but these people do not deserve to have their religion (however crazy YOU may think they are) slandered on our Current Events page. Veritas Aequitas WikiTony (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikitony gets 8 hours, and a trawl through the history finds User:Le Blue Dude and User:128.255.187.32 have been edit warring on the same page so 8 hours each to them too. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Oren.tal reported by User:Itaqallah (Result: 36 hours)

    Qur'an and miracles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Oren.tal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: No specific version due to intermediary edits. All reverts include the restoration of tendentious polemical external links, such as ones to "mukto-mona", "infidels.org", and so on.
    • Diff of 3RR warning: Not necessary, user has been blocked a few times previously due to 3RR violations. Even then, he had been warned about violating it on this article.[62]

    As explained above, user continues reverting to insert tendentious external links. ITAQALLAH 18:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, per evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yorkshirian reported by User:David Shankbone (Result: 24 h)

    Guy Fawkes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: No specific version due to intermediate edits


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [67]

    This last weekend a worldwide protest against Scientology occurred, and was oft-reported in the press. The protesters in almost every city took to wearing Guy Fawkes masks. I included a photo of this under the "In Popular Culture" section of Guy Fawkes and one user, User:Yorkshirian, has edit-warred and left rude messages on my Talk page, even after warning, simply because he doesn't like it. David Shankbone 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Still edit-warring, this time when a second User puts the photo: [68] --David Shankbone 19:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Shankbone added a piece of WP:SPAM to the article of Guy Fawkes, which has no relevence to the historical man at all. It was explained to Shankbone explicitly that this "scientology vs. athiesm" USA thing is a direct parody from a movie and was not a reference to the man. Shankbone took the picture himself and decided to keep re-adding the SPAM despite having it explained to him that it doesn't belong.
    The masks the people are wearing in his photograph is a direct parody from the fictional movie V for Vendetta (film), its a parody of an exact scene from that movie and has nothing at all to do with the historical person at all. Despite explaining to Shankbone that such as a spamming is unacceptable and it infact, is a parody of a movie, not Fawkes' life, he continued to edit war, so he could have "his picture" on.
    Fawkes is a very high profile historical person in the UK and this thing has absoutely nothing to do with the man at all, since its a parody of a movie. It belongs on the article on the movie, otherwise it fails WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. Guy Fawkes' article is no a bulletin board for updates on the movie V for Vendetta. The same spam would not be allowed on an article of George W. Bush or Tony Blair, ect so why should it be on here?
    Note - removing balatant examples of SPAM does not count in 3RR according to Wikipedia. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not true. The protesters are mimicking Guy Fawkes, using a mask from a movie about a Guy Fawkes imitator (complete with blowing up Parliament). The movie had nothing to do with Scientology, and the "pop culture" surfacing of Guy Fawkes today merits mention. This User is edit-warring, he isn't even discussing on the Talk page. His "explanations" are edit summaries. Two different editors have put the photo on, noting their preference, and Yorkshirian has reverted now five times today against two users. --David Shankbone 20:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What you just stated is a complete lie. First of all, I started a section on the talkpage about your SPAM,[69] and invited you to it via your talk, which you have not joined.
    Second of all, how on earth are internet athiests in the USA mimicking Guy Fawkes (a Catholic who revolted against the king) by copying an exact scene from a movie V for Vendetta (film)? The film is not a biographical or factual movie. Its fiction, set in the future.[70] Please read this slowly and comprehend it, or better yet watch the film and you will see the exact scene which these people made a parody of. The masks they're wearing are even pieces of merchandise from that film.
    SPAM is allowed to be removed as not counted as a revert according to Wikipedia's policy. You took the picture, you insisted in spamming it on an article which it has no relevence, despite having it explained to you. I removed it, simple. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not SPAM, yes I know the movie is fiction and I understand its references, and I will just wait for you to be blocked since you are edit-warring against two editors and can stand a break. --David Shankbone 20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't be blocked for removing WP:SPAM, as I explained to you above. I will just wait for you to be blocked for edit warring with three users during the last two days and SPAMing. You can stand a break, perhaps to disuade from spamming more in the future. Do you have an explination for not entering a discussion on the talk?

    Shankbone's warring with three users:

    • 19:32, 12 February 2008 [71]
    • 19:23, 12 February 2008 [72]
    • 13:40, 12 February 2008 [73]
    • 19:24, 11 February 2008 [74]
    • 19:06, 11 February 2008 [75] - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting. The first three are over this issue, and I didn't violate 3RR. The second two are fighting vandals. How old are you that you continually copy and past what I write and write it back to me? Are there any Admins around today? --David Shankbone 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK so according to you, its fine to remove vandalism and it not count as a revert or "warring". But if somebody removed your SPAM out-of place, self-promotion then thats not OK? Interesting. Well according to Wikipedia's policy, it doesn't agree with you. In fact it explicitly states that your SPAMming on a high key article is wrong. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:3RR allows some exceptions, e.g. for simple and obvious vandalism and also for spamming. However, while I clearly see the vandalism, I cannot see David's image addition as spam. This is a simple content conflict, and, as I see it, Yorkshirian was wrong in breaking WP:3RR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hrs - Yorkshirian, you may have a point about the content not belonging there. However, WP:3RR policy explicitly doesn't allow for content disputes being a legitimate reason for edit warring. If it was truly spam - and only spam - then it falls under vandalism, and then removing it is ok. But this isn't spam. It's a content dispute, over whether particular content is notable and applicable to a particular article or not. And for edit warring over that, you get a 3RR block. Sorry.

    Please discuss on the article talk page and seek consensus rather than edit warring like this, next time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Niteshift36 reported by User:Bobblehead (Result: 24 hrs )

    Template:2008 Republican presidential primaries delegate counts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been involved in an edit war with named and anonymous users on United States Presidential election, 2008, Template:2008 Republican presidential primaries delegate counts, and Template:2008 Democratic presidential primaries delegate counts over the inclusion of Mike Gravel and Alan Keyes. He received a warning from User:Sarcasticidealist yesterday after violating 3RR on the election article and repeated the violation today on the Republican delegates template. Bobblehead (rants) 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Luke4545 reported by User:SmartisSexy (Result: No violation on Luke4545, no conclusion on Smartissexy)

    Catherine Deneuve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Luke4545 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported:11:14pm 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [76]



    Luke4545 has been guilty of 3RR countless times on this article in the past week. He insists that the current template not be touched until the dispute is settled, unfortunately his version is not the original template, and he reverts it the second anyone else adds something to the page. I am not the only individual reverting from his template, and his constant reverting is disruptive. Not only that, he is accusing me of having multiple IP's which isn't even possible. Please look into this matter whenever possible. Thanks Smartissexy (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Countless times? Way to exaggerate the truth. Also, I'm not the one who reverted the article WITHOUT using the discussion page FIRST, once the initial protection template was used. You reverted the page back to your desired edit. No one was really adding anything else; it was just constant anonymous IPs (along with a user that JUST registered) reverting back to the version that you wanted. Using multiple IPs is possible. Also, by your logic behind the accusation of 3RR, you would be guilty of it with your IP 67.11.187.178 as well (which was proven that you used it, given another report you issued here) in several previous edits prior to the other protection template.
    Look, I don't want anyone to be blocked for this, I just want the discussion page used before ANYONE makes any revisions. That's it. That's why I was hoping Smartissexy would have used the discussion page before reverting to her desired version. -- Luke4545 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like semi-protection was given to the article and it now appears we're moving towards a constructive resolution through the discussion page; thus, I hope this will put an end to this whole ordeal without any further action. -- Luke4545 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation on Luke4545, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Smartissexy filed to determine whether Smartissexy violated 3RR using socks. --B (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI to anyone keeping score, the checkuser came back inconclusive. I'm flipping a coin as to whether to block Kimokeg as this account is unquestionably either a 3RR-evading sock or an impersonator and either way a bad thing. --B (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drstrangelove57 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: no vio)

    A Simple Plan (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Drstrangelove57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:44 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war over inclusion of original research. Geoff B (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Also, be sure to warn editors (i.e., using {{uw-3rr}}), as they might not know our policies. --slakr\ talk / 01:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chairman Meow reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: 55 hours)

    100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chairman Meow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been fighting this edit war (and doing little else on Wikipedia) off and on since March 2007 against what appears to unanimous opposition. He has been quite rude on the talk page and prefers insult and accusation to discussion. On the article talk page s/he has declared "I won't stop, ever". Gamaliel (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 55 hours Also an issue of disruptive editing. --slakr\ talk / 01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Iziizi reported by User:Cvcc (Result:warning)

    Sungnyemun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Iziizi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [80]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [86]

    User:Iziizi is frequently removed valuable pictures. These picturees are very important sources for thinking the history of Sungnyemun. Cvcc (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs; oldids are too hard to read. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry I corrected.--Cvcc (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to leave it at a warning now for two reasons: first, no four reverts technically fall into a 24-hour period (though the first four are only off by four minutes, geez), and second and more importantly, the user was only warned after the last revert. If the user continues to edit war, a block will likely be in order. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.191.181.245 reported by User:Mind_meal (Result: Page protected)

    Dennis Genpo Merzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.191.181.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: It isn't that simple; please see the edit history for the article, as they were not technical reverts.


    User:24.191.181.245 has repeatedly inserted controversial information into the article. I've tried to talk about it on their talk page, I've kindly warned them, and I've manually changed countless edits. They must have an axe to grind, even though I think there is even some validity to what they've inserted (it just isn't referenced). When I asked for references, they used a site called "zensite.com" and then a response to a blog post. Mind meal (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected by Tikiwont. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Twobells reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 12 hour block)

    Bloody Sunday (1972) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Twobells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor repeatedly adds a POV tag in a "drive-by" fashion, refusing to provide a legitimate reason for it as required by Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Repeated requests here have failed to produce any meaningful reasoning, and the same editor has previously done the exact same thing on another article here. One Night In Hackney303 13:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, 12 hours only as user also engaged in apparently legitimate talk page discussion of the issue. CIreland (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Jrclark reported by User:NHguardian (Result:Jrclark 24, NHguardian 31 hours)

    Berkshire East Ski Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jrclark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 1:16 est Feb 13 2008

    • Previous version reverted to: [94]


    3RR cited in private talk from user Pgagnon999^^^.

    User has continued and repeatedly edited out factual and cited information with regard to the Berkshire East Ski Resort and its vertical gain. True vertical gain has been discussed in the Berkshire east discussion page and has been proven through numerous citations. User even admits original numbers (stated as 1180) are incorrect yet continues reverting to them. User was warned and continued to revert. User had refused to come up with real numbers (which to me would be fine if they did). User has also violated 3RR rule in numerous other articles while posting links to personal webpages (see user JRclark history).

    Thanks, NHguardian—Preceding unsigned comment added by NHguardian (talk • contribs) 18:56, 13 February 2008


    NHguardian at first refused to use the Discussion tab, and then continued to revert any edits or compromises made by me and another user. We advised NHguardian to take up the issue with Wiki Project Ski (designers of the template in question), which he finally did, but continued to undo our compromises and refused to wait for Wiki Project Ski to discuss prior to modifying their template (in only this one case). It also appears that NHguardian tried to do an additional edit outside of the NHguardian account - an IP check may verify this.
    I feel that it is unfair that NHguardian has targetted this one ski area when vertical drops across the ski industry are published using different standards. The advertised number has been published for decades and can be cited in countless in print publications as well as web sites. I felt that it was only fair to remove the number in question until the group had decided whether or not to update their ski area template. If they choose to add a second vertical drop number to all ski areas (and come up with a consistent way to measure this), then I am in favor of it.
    I'm here to contribute, not to engage in edit wars. I'm confident that comparing Contribution tabs will confirm this. Jrclark (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both users are edit warring. Both blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this isn't the place to post it, but I also suspect 71.168.80.203 is NHguardian. 71.168.80.203 posted my personal information and has been trying fabricate a conflict of interest, even making up a quote by the business owner in the article in question. Jrclark (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm extending NHguardian's block to 31 hours as a result of edit warring by disruption on this page. [103][104][105] appears there may also be sockpuppety involved
    Freeskier328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    71.168.80.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    71.181.48.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    --Hu12 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yaf reported by User:Rezguy (Result: )

    Ruby Ridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [106]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [110]

    3RR cited in private talk from user Rezguy^^^.

    User has continued and repeatedly reverted biased page back to original biased state without commentary justifying bias. Thanks, Rezguy


    User:KellyAna reported by User:Bleek25 (Result: )

    Las Vegas (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KellyAna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



    She has clearly Broken the 3RR rule.Also deleted a warning that i but on her talk page see here. Bleek25 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Momento reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result: )

    Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Momento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverts to the sentence referenced to Hunt:

    Complex reversions, but every 5 of them at least removes this part of the phrase "(...) turned away from asceticism (...)"

    A short explanation of the incident:

    Plus Momento's behaviour more and more resembles some sort of disruption or trolling: something is discussed on talk page, Momento can't win the argument, Momento does the revert again, and starts a new talk page section on the same topic as the one he couldn't win the argument on shortly before, e.g.: 20:06, 13 February 2008, starting new thread on the photo that was already discussed at Talk:Prem Rawat#Third Photo Thread (to which Momento contributed the previous day, and couldn't win the argument), and yet again deletes that photograph, or moves it around etc.

    Also, there was a 3RR block of Momento less than a week ago, regarding disruption on the same page. [111] --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Francis, editing-by-revert does not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 17:03, 11 February 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */ we don't need all sorts of qualifiers here, see talk, Talk:Prem Rawat#Discussion")
    2. 16:19, 12 February 2008 (edit summary: "revert removal of links, per talk page, like previous time")
    3. 16:34, 12 February 2008 (edit summary: "per talk page, Talk:Prem_Rawat#Re._.7B.7Bcriticism-section.7D.7D, and Talk:Prem_Rawat#Criticism_section")
    4. 17:36, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "Hunt, per talk: Talk:Prem Rawat#First Hunt Thread, Talk:Prem Rawat#Second Hunt Thread; External links per Talk:Prem Rawat#External links disputes; restoring other no-consensus removals")
    5. 20:18, 13 February 2008 (edit summary: "rv per my previous edit summaries, and the new talk page sections, repeating topics under discussion on talk, started again by a the revertor")
    I have requested non-involved admins to look at the possibility of page protection, if that would be helpful, at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Prem Rawat article has been the subject of vigorous editing since The Register article. Francis Schonken started it off [112] by reverting to a 12 month old version that was 25,000 bytes different from the article that had been stable for months. He was reverted by other editors. Since then he has been cautioned by several editors but seems intent on imposing his view. But on 12 February 2008 [113] he again reverted to the 12 months old article and eliminated the work of a dozen editors. In this 3RR case Francis Schonken inserted some material into the lede out of order that creates a false impression. All the sources that back the sentence refer to the 70s but Francis Schonken insists that it should be placed in the 2001+ section. Since this is a BLP it is important that we "get it right". I didn't revert nor did I remove or add material in the first three edits that Francis Schonken mentions, I relocated the sentence to its correct chronological place. The sentence is a summary of quotes about the 70s and that needs to be clear, either by its place in the lede or by inclusion in the text. Since Francis keeps reverted my chronological edit, I added the text "In the 70s" to the sentence which was my 4th edit. This article is a BLP and needs to be" written conservatively". Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. I interpret the above to include, well sourced material that is deliberately placed out of chronology to create a false impression. Francis has made only two edits in the last 24 hours and they are two total reverts eliminating the work of six other editors.Momento (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Francis's three.[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]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=191274346"