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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Justanother (talk | contribs)
9,266 edits
→‎[[User:Smeelgova]] reported by [[User:Justanother]] (Result:No violation): it was a righteous call on my part of five (5) reverts
Justanother (talk | contribs)
9,266 edits
m →‎[[User:Smeelgova]] reported by [[User:Justanother]] (Result:No violation): it was a righteous call on my part of five (5) reverts
Line 1,805: Line 1,805:


Also ''2007-02-09T22:31:19 Bishonen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "BabyDweezil (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Aggravated 3RR on Cult apologist: 7 reverts in 17 hours, multiply warned, simultaneouly edit warring and 3RR gaming on Keith Henson, just back from edit war block, just back from previous edit war block.)'' [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 10:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Also ''2007-02-09T22:31:19 Bishonen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "BabyDweezil (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Aggravated 3RR on Cult apologist: 7 reverts in 17 hours, multiply warned, simultaneouly edit warring and 3RR gaming on Keith Henson, just back from edit war block, just back from previous edit war block.)'' [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 10:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
::Hi. Yes, BD got in trouble but still Smee was over-aggressive, IMO. Please see my comments above. --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 13:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
::Hi. Yes, BD got in trouble but still Smee was over-aggressive, IMO, and clearly violated 3RR (not opinion, fact). Please see my comments above. --[[User:Justanother|Justanother]] 13:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


===[[User:Nirelan2]] reported by [[User:Betsythedevine]] (Result:Indef block)===
===[[User:Nirelan2]] reported by [[User:Betsythedevine]] (Result:Indef block)===

Revision as of 13:54, 10 February 2007

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

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report



    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:Atabek reported by User:Nareklm (Result:protected page)

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

    • 1st revert: [1]
    • 2nd revert: [2]
    • 3rd revert: [3]
    • 4th revert: [4]
    • 5th revert: [5]
    • 6th revert: [6]
    • 7th revert: [7]
    • Warning: [8]

    Nareklm 03:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I warned this user repeatedly about 3RR, but he kept arguing that he was somehow entitled to more reverts because he was taking part in the talk page discussion and kept reverting the article. --Mardavich 03:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: There are several people engaged in constant reverts in related pages, and I warned one such user, Mardavich, of his potential 3RR violation on the Nezami page. It seems like some just like to revert pages, and with them all the fully-sources facts. This could fall under the definition of vandalism, and requires rv. by responsible editors who actively use the Talk page and supply scholarly facts and references, as opposed to provocations and fights. --AdilBaguirov 06:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: There's no reason to bring this here, leave it there, it does not fall in the category of vandalism, anyone can "revert" edits vandalism is different. Nareklm 07:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Edits were made to each revision upon RV, review the site and the talk page. The dispute is currently being resolved in Talk:Safavid_Dynasty page, after the page is blocked. Thanks, but this seems more like attempt to block the voice rather than attempt to report 3RR. Mardavich and Nareklm are involved in RVing my edits, and removing scholarly references. Thanks. Atabek 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Like i said don't bring this here if you ever want to negotiate. Nareklm 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I don't feel I need to negotiate anything with you. There is a talk page for that. The fact is Mardavich and yourself are engaged in edit warring without any discussion, and then putting users into 3RR warnings. This should be noted by admins. Thanks. Atabek 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Edit warring? you Grandmaster, adil, all have been edit warring all the time, and have been adding POV erasing any existence of Armenian nearby just because you have references doesn't make your work magic. Nareklm 07:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Exactly, because you edit and witch hunt after every single one of our references, keep RVing. So this needs to stop. Also all links that you put up there as "evidence" diffs clearly show edits in REF of a various texts. No interest to discuss the topic here, prefer to leave the judgement to admins. Thanks. Atabek 07:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: There all reversions end of story. Nareklm 07:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Nareklm, you and the other user mentioned here have been reverting pages that were: 1) not only updated with fully-sourced reputable and verifiable scholarly quotes, but 2) have been wikified and otherwise improved (e.g., fixing spelling mistakes, fixing dates from 2006 to 2007, etc) and 3) have been discussed and compromised upon months ago (last summer, in fact) and 4) in case of the population table in NK page re-affirmed and agreed to by such admins as Golbez. Sorry, but this does look like vandalism or at least recklessness. One cannot blame others for restoring normal scholarly presentation of articles. --AdilBaguirov 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This user (Atabek) also has had a confirmed sock which has now been blocked and continually makes personal attacks.Azerbaijani 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    2007-01-31T19:59:11 Gnangarra (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Safavid dynasty: edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 10:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:213.170.207.96 reported by User:Rosenkreuz (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Level of support for evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (talk page). 213.170.207.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: Repeatedly placing this irrelevant POV rant on the talk page, despite having it explained to them why it is not welcome there.
    • 1st revert: [9]
    • 2nd revert: [10]
    • 3rd revert: [11]
    • 4th revert: [12]
    • 5th revert: [13]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [14]; to which they responded with this


    Comments: They've been indulging in a goodly stream of vulgarity on their talk page as well.

    24h William M. Connolley 13:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:No problem 1254 reported by User:AnonMoos (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Rafida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). No problem 1254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Latest tentacle of "Iraqi dinar" vandal (see Talk:Rafida), also vandalized my user page. AnonMoos 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • He violated 4RR, he's a sockpuppet of a known vandal, and he's made yet another revert on the article since what I reported above, so why isn't he being banned?? AnonMoos 19:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 19:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Timeshift9 reported by User:Joestella (Result: peace agreed)

    Three-revert rule violation on New South Wales legislative election, 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Timeshift9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: User, having sought 3O and disagreed, now believes that they "will ensure the MPL table stays". Joestella 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would advise no action on this complaint at this time, other than a sternly-worded warning to both parties – who, for record's sake, have both behaved poorly. The edit war has ceased and the parties are currently engaged in discussion on multiple pages.--cj | talk 17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Joestella 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice to see peace William M. Connolley 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ALR reported by 204.122.16.13 (Result: 3h)

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

    I suppose it's open to interpretation, I've been making quite a lot of intermediate changes to the article so I might have lost track.ALR 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments:

    3h first offence William M. Connolley 19:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Warned above at: #Lovelight_reported_by_User:Wildnox_.28Result:page_protected.29] on 26 January 2007

    Comments:

    User:Aardman Animations reported by User:Static Universe (Result:blocked indefinitely)

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


    Comments: User keeps removing the Afd message despite warnings, along with previous removal of merge proposals on the same page. Static Universe talk|edits 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely for usernamevio. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Migye reported by User:Kjoonlee (Result:)

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

    Comments: Refuses to acknowledge other people's opinions, does not assume good faith, makes personal attacks

    Comments: User:Kjoonlee, you wrote these sentences in the Korean Language articel introdcution yourself, then you deleted it 3 times. I only restored your deletion twice and have never attacked you in any way. You're so ridiculous. Migye 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. Diffs:
    As for attacks, you're doing it again! --Kjoonlee 16:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've only deleted that bit twice. --Kjoonlee 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you should say I restored your deletion 3 times. "Ridiculous" is not an offensive word, not to mention personal attack. Migye 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Factually false. If you want to discuss this further, please use my talk page. --Kjoonlee 16:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to be honest, I have reverted content more than 3 times in 24 hours. If you block Migye, block me too, please. --Kjoonlee 17:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Boris Stomakhin

    I do not really want to report anyone, but someone may take a look at Boris Stomakhin article and make a judgment. One of the RR warring participants (me) struggle to enforce LP policy, while another, User:Vlad fedorov, claims that LP policy has not been violated. This case was reported by me to LP notice board and it was also reported previously here by User:Vlad fedorov, and I was commended. Biophys 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC) See: Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Violations_of_LP_policyBiophys 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC) I just would like to note that User:Vlad fedorov evaded your block previously. Biophys 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The bottom line is:

    • Biophys disputes the phrases not contained in the article on Boris Stomakhin, and namely the phrases about Shahids and about stinky Russia.
    • Biophys disputes these phrases by comparing them to the source he claims to be unreliable (RKO website).
    • one disputed phrase (about Shahids) is contained also at RKO website and match perfectly to that cited by Journalist.
    • Some words from the second disputed phrase (stinky Russia) are contained in both the Official court sentence and conviction.
    • Biophys disputes here only RKO website, which is not relevant to the dispute right now, because we discuss only Izvestia article.
    • Biophys disputes these phrases based on the logic that 'they were probably taken by Maksim Sokolov' from RKO website. But he couldn't know actually.
    • Biophys logic is that all Stomakhin citations should be contained on the RKO website, although we know that there are newspaper 'Radikalnaya Politika' edited by Boris Stomakhin and there are publications of other radicals which could have published citation of Stomakhin in question. I don't understand why Biophys think that all Stomakhin citations should be contained only at RKO website.
    • Biophys failed to show that there are contradictory phrases. Out of three citation by Maksim Sokolov, two are found at the RKO website1 citation at RKO website2 citation at RKO website and they perfectly match those of the Journalist and one (about 'Stinky Russia') is not found, because Journalist haven't provided sources. The impossibility to found right now missing citation is not contradiction to Izvestia article. The fact that this citation couldn't be found does not mean contradiction.
    • The phrase 'worse than blog' is absolutely incorrect in regard of RKO website, since Biophys doesn't have evidence that this site has no any review, Biophys has no information on who runs the website.
    • Journalists have the privilege not to disclose their sources, in order to provide the freedom of speech.

    And now the basic question: where is the controversy? If Biophys claims RKO website is unreliable, then how he uses this website in order to validate Journalist citations? Vlad fedorov 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I never used it. Biophys 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was established in discussion that Biophys claims about contradictions in the sources are false. And there are no contradictions between citations of Izvestia journalist Maksim Sokolov and articles written by Stomakhin at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm and http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm. They match perfectly to those which are cited by journalist Maksim Sokolov. Anyone interested may look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Points_to_answer_for_Biophys and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#quote_.22Death_to_Russia.22Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to notice that currently Biophys claims that these sources: 1) Unreliable; 2) not neutral; 3) Non-encyclopedic style. Given the history of Biophys contributions and namely insertion of Putin into 'Phallus' article and creation of the deleted latter article on blog "La Russophobe" I suggest anyone to think one more time about User:Biophys good faith. He contributes only to biophysics and anti-Russian materials. He failed to prove the contradiction - which was the main point of his argumentation. He lied intentionally about contradictions. And he deleted the material which he called "contradictory". Biophys believes that there is a plot (conspiracy) by Russian government against extremist Stomakhin sentenced for extremism]. And Biophys tries to delete from the article on Stomakhin all information that could doubt this thought. My citations prove that Stomakhin actually wasn't dissident since he called for violence, called terrorist attacks legitimate and called Chechen terrorists heroes. He wants now to delete these supported by sources phrases from the article on Stomakhin by claiming they are unreliable. But these phrases are supported not only by the official court sentence.Vlad fedorov 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to notice that Biophys now deletes texts which were not disputed by him and which are taken from the most respectable and prominent Russian newspapers having their articles in English Wikipedia. Namely, articles from Izvestia, Komsomolskaya Pravda and Rossiyskaya Gazeta.Vlad fedorov 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Biophys systematically discriminates me. He deletes my supported texts claimg that he is 'fixing sources' and claiming that he is doing neutral version.Vlad fedorov 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I also would like to notice that administrator Alex Bakharev has found no violations in my edits. See here his explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Block_of_User:Vlad_fedorov_.28discussion_.2Aclosed.2A.29 Vlad fedorov 20:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: the article has been protected; I hope this will let this little edit/flame war die down without administrative intervention and turn into something productive. —xyzzyn 23:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You have protected version of Biophys. And it is discrimination of me. Biophys was deleteing and reverting versions done not only by me, but by administrators Mikkalai, Alex Bakharev. So it just simply protection of Biophys version. I oppose that kind of thing. I would like to ask Alex Bakharev or Mikkalai to revert the article back to their version.Vlad fedorov 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dahn reported by User:Icar (Result:No action)

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

    Comments: The first 5 reverts took place in less than 24 hours; same for reverts 4 to 7. User Dahn disrupts every attempt of other editors to modify the article. He was banned 2 days ago [15] for misbehaving about another article. There is growing sense of discontent among editors of this article at Dahn's attitude. Typically he reverts everything, saying simply that it was "vandalism", which is false. The other editors try to edit this article in good faith. Dahn does not, so he should be banned. Thanks (83.137.240.214 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    This is part of a bad, long standing edit war. Monitoring it for now. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anonimu reported by User:FunkyFly (Result:User warned)

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

    Comments: This repeat 3RR offender has committed 5 reverts in 28 hours and is being incivil. He was warned on his page for 3RR violation.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, it is just beyond 24 hours. However, I will warn the user. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.121.144.14 (also known as User:Dharmaburning) reported by User:SagePose (Result:page protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on The Freecycle Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.121.144.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 18 Jan 2007
    • 1st revert: [16] 2-Feb
    • 2nd revert: [17] -Feb
    • 3rd revert: [18] 2-Feb
    • 4th revert: [19] 2-Feb
    • 5th revert: [20] 2-Feb
    • 6th revert:

    [21] 1-Feb

    Comments: User has repeatedly blanked out large sections of an article. Other editors have reverted changes back to the last stable version, with a request to discuss this first before progressing. User repeatedly reverts this back to his newly shortened article, insisting that discussion starts from this new base rather than the original article.

    Since original post, user has adoped a wiki name User:Dharmaburning, continued to make mass blankings without discussion, and further posted a 3RR block warning to my page without justification.

    Further reverts on 3rd February:

    1st reversion: [22] 2nd reversion: [23] 3rd reversion: [24]

    I protected the page. Really hot edit war going on. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 12:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These reversions are made for content defending of User:SagePose's insistence that all edits to said page, including grammatical, typographical and formatting, be discussed and approved by him before execution. A 3RR complaint has be filed. Dharmaburning 12:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is simply not true. There have been no arguments over grammar, typos or formatting, Dharmaburning has been unable to display any such reversions, and the charge seems an entirely unwarranted allegation. The sole arguments have been over Dharmaburning's mass blanking of long-standing content. At least two other editors have been involved in repeatedly undoing the damage and requesting that big and controversial changes are discussed. SagePose 14:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nkras reported by User:Coelacan (Result: User warned)

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

    Comments: Not every revert is exactly the same, but the intended effect is to remove any mention of same-sex marriage from the article, especially the lead. User has been warned of 3RR before, as above diff shows. This is an established user who was blocked before over behavior in this dispute. This diff may also be of interest: "let's just team up our quota of reverts".[25] — coelacan talk — 03:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry but the reverts are simply to different from each other to justify a block on the basis of 3rr. I will however warn the user on his talk page against edit warring. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 07:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rbj reported by User:Coelacan (Result: 48hrs)

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: block log -- Rbj has been blocked for 3RR multiple times before, including specifically on Marriage

    Comments: Also an established user who has been blocked for behavior on articles related to this particular subject. Not all reverts are precisely the same, but in contrast to Nkras, above, Rbj's preference is to revert to an OED dictionary definition of: "A marriage is a socially, religiously, or legally recognized union of a man and woman as husband and wife." The interesting diff provided above, "let's just team up our quota of reverts",[26] was said by Rbj to Nkras. — coelacan talk — 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    48hrs as habitual 3rr breaker and per the fact that user committed 8 reverts.--Jersey Devil 06:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pernambuco reported by User:MariusM (Result: warning)

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: Not a new user

    Comments: Pernambuco is trying to keep the so-called "compromise version of Vecrumba" for the introduction of the article, despite the fact that such compromise version didn't exist. There were 2 users that had a disscussion regarding the introduction, however the rest of the editors of that article didn't accept the result of their disscussion, mainly the presence of word "officially" regarding the name Pridnestrovie for Transnistria. We had a poll on this subject on the talk page [27] and the result of the poll was to remove the word officially, but Pernambuco don't want to accept this result. Even Vecrumba, whos name is used by Pernambuco to justify his reverts told in the poll that is preferable to remove the word "official".--MariusM 10:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure why this is a revert William M. Connolley 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is a revert of this edit of Bufadreen. I was not the only one reverted.--MariusM 19:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Having taken advice, P gets a warning. Others may feel free to review William M. Connolley 20:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SagePose) reported by User:Dharmaburning (Result:page protected)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: []

    Comments: User has repeatedly summarily reverted the entire article and all changes. Other editors have reverted changes back with a pleading to rationally discuss edits. User refuses to discuss merits of content, personally attacks other editors and demands that everyone submit to his terms or he will continue to summarily revert edits, insisting that even things such as grammar and typos must be first discussed and is prone to other harassing behavior such as filing a 3RR complaint for editors having to reverse his summary reversions, which the User characterizes it as vandalism - another complaint filed, where will it end? This has also been filed with Member Advocates.

    Response Above report is disingenuous. User Dharmaburning, under that and IP address, has made mass blankings. Other editors have reverted back to last stable edit. Dharmaburning insists on reinstating his contrversial edits, characterizing these as reverts. The statement on grammar disputes is misleading, as is evident from the page history and discussion page. The 3RR was filed after multiple reversions on the same day. This is one person with a strong PoV acting against all the other editors.SagePose 13:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Katrasay reported by User:Colin Keigher (Result:24h)

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

    Comments:

    24h. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Goethean reported by User:75.44.39.2 (Result: No action)

    Three-revert rule violation on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This is not a 3rr violation. You were told on that page that if you disagreed with the article existing to take it up for articles for deletion. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by these actions you will be blocked. No action.--Jersey Devil 21:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just wondering if why I'm disruptive, when the other party can do what he wants and to disagrees is to be disruptive??? why so one sided??? Are policies enforced unequally. But asking such questions is "Disruptive". Now I will be banned for asking a "disruptive" question as to why this guy can be a bully and a known edit thug and no action is taken?.75.44.39.2 23:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Comments: It has been confirmed that Taiwanlove (talk · contribs) is Nationalist (talk · contribs)'s sock puppet, so it is clear that He/She used Taiwanlove to evade violating the 3RR. He/She also reported me for violating 3RR on this article before I knew that Taiwanlove was his sock puppet.--Jerrypp772000 00:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs not versions William M. Connolley 10:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry. I just changed it, please review it again, thanks.--Jerrypp772000 18:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ALready blocked on the 30th for 3RR, so this is out of date William M. Connolley 19:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BuyAMountain reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result:)

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


    Comments: Not much to add, but BAM has been told that what he keeps adding is not-notable to a results page and is the kind of detail that belongs on a wrestling news site (or a wrestling wiki). TJ Spyke 00:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeez, Nice to see admins upholding 3RR policy... Its been almost a week since... -- bulletproof 3:16 05:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nobleeagle reported by MinaretDk (Result:no violation)

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


    Comments:

    MinaretDk was vandalizing the page and nobleeagle was adding sourced content. The 3RR board is not a soapbox for religious fundamentalists to try and get rid of good standing users.Bakaman 02:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not 3RR violation - 3rd revert is not a "revert." Rama's arrow 02:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made it clear before my understanding that you abuse your admin powers to silence people who oppose your POV. According to WP:3RR, a revert includes reversions in full or in part. There are many more reverts listed on the page by him, which an unbiased admin would be welcome to check. MinaretDk 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What BhaiSaab thinks is irrelevant.Bakaman 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MinaretDk reported by User:Bakasuprman (Result:Page protected)

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

    2007-02-03T19:38:54

    2007-02-03T20:05:46

    User not following WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Misleading edit summaries and canvassing for reverts happened here. There is reasonable suspicion that this user is a sock of BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) given his incoherent babble about "socks of Hkelkar" flying around everywhere. (kind of like unicorns).Bakaman 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also user misrepresents WP:VAND accusing editors not sympathetic to his fringe POV of vandalism in a content dispute.Bakaman 03:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    According to WP:Vandalism, blanking of cited text without reason is vandalism. WP:3RR makes it clear it doesn't apply to vandalism. Another editor undid the blanking of text just as I did, and also used the "rvv" edit summary. For the first few times I undid Baka's and User:Rumplestiltskin223's edits, no excuse was given to justify blanking well-supported content. They were works of vandalism, uncontested. Add to that, the edits I undid by the anon-IP was found to be the banned Rumplestiltskin223.

    The new excuse is that the content that was blanked violates NPOV on undue weight and fringe. This is a new pretext to disguise vandalism as a content dispute. The content in question includes United Nations demands that the religiously sanctioned Devadsi prostitution practice be banned by India. This is a recent event, covered by many NGOs including Human Rights Watch. The UN and HRW are not fringe organizations, and their demands of India dealing with the problem of persecution of dalit women via Devadasa isn't a fringe position. This pretext is hollow if one uses even a bit of intelligence to decipher what's going on. MinaretDk 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right. Its because I'm the son of a donkey isnt it? Bakaman 03:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments: I want Minaret Banned. it's because of him so many pages are protected write now. the user is not constructive at all.--D-Boy 09:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No block for now. Page has been protected by another administrator. Please use dispute resolution and request for checkuser. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Drake Clawfang reported by Thisisbossi (Result: 8h)

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

    Comments: He's removing perfectly fine content based on personal opinion and preferences, which is both vandalism and OR. I've never been blocked and don't want to be either. So yes, I'll talk about this, fine. Drake Clawfang 06:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8h William M. Connolley 10:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TJ Spyke reported by Thisisbossi (Result: 48h)

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

    Comments: I have tried to reason with him on his talk page, but he won't listen (I even told him when he got to 3 reverts that he was on the verge of breaking the rules). I have started a discussion on the DX talk page to see if he will at least talk there. That should take care of this issue, since I don't want to get blocked over crap like this. TJ Spyke 06:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    48h William M. Connolley 10:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Prosfilaes reported by 81.107.203.67 15:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC) (Result:)

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


    - * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 1407 4 Feb 2007 (removed 3 times subsequently by violator)


    Comments: This is the second time the user has violated 3RR on this page. The user also repeatedly removes any warnings placed on his talkpage regarding the matter.

    User:81.107.203.67 reported by User:Prosfilaes (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Unwinnable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.107.203.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: User has been blocked before on this article [28] and violated the block [29].

    Mistaken: "1st revert" is implementation of WP:3O (official dispute resolution system of wikipedia) and not a revert. Furthermore, no diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

    3O is no defence. But its not obvious why the first revert is one - certainly not to the "prev version". OTOH P *has* broken 3rr so gets 24h William M. Connolley 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Damastakilla reported by User:Lakes (Result:)

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


    Comments: He continues to alter/revert various professional wrestler articles to his views. Another example is Nelson Erazo.

    Not more wrestling nonsense! You're both reverting without proper edit summaries or any sign of talk. Stoppit or you'll both get blocked William M. Connolley 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Damastakilla has ignored edit summaries and added html comments, to which some have responded by adding comments for him to stop. I've tried to reason with him in his talk page, but he has not responded. I've stopped adding edit summary to my reverts because they don't seem to effect him. ↪Lakes (Talk) 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Laertes d reported by User:NikoSilver (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Greek War of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Laertes d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: User repeatedly replacing a legitimate source with a {{fact}} tag (among other pov edits). NikoSilver 19:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24h and cautioned about reinserting changes without gaining consensus on the talk page. Syrthiss 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:89.224.33.95 reported by User:Amnewsboy (Result:Warned)

    Three-revert rule violation on BBC America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 89.224.33.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: User has been warned about inserting this into the article but continues to do so anyway. Amnewsboy 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User was not notified about WP:3RR. I have done so now. Draw administrator attention again, if he continues to edit-war. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:211.28.148.185 reported by User:JuJube (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on English language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 211.28.148.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User:Razmear reported by User:Dharmaburning (Result:)

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

    Comments: Please note, this page has already been locked down and the "Previous version reverted to" is now out of date, but included here for thoroughness. This report is subsequent to another filed, and is being investigated via an associated AMA. Additionally, in attempting to discuss the effects of his actions, user also threatened (Razmear 22:30, 2 February 2007) to continue reversions. Dharmaburning 02:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Hong Kong reported by User:CyclePat (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 154.20.71.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): IP adress

    Comments: I'm not going to spend 10 minutes figuring this out. THE PAGE, I THINK IS CURRENTLY Being vandalized. just saying! Cheers

    History of page

    User:E tac reported by User:156.34.213.15 (Result:Page protected and warned)

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

    Comments: E tac (talk · contribs) is ignoring apparent talk page concensus to revert the article to his own POV. A 3RR Warning was issued to the user but he deleted it claiming it was talk page vandalism. User:E tac has been blocked previously for 3RR violations so he has an understanding of the policy see: block log.

    As it was IP addresses E tac was warring with, I have protected the page for discussion on the talk page. A warning would be issues to this user. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Briantist reported by User:ElinorD (Result: 24 hours)

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


    Comments: Gillian McKeith writes books about nutrition, and has a doctorate which is not from an accredited university. She hosts television shows, claiming to be able to diagnose and treat peoples' health problems by examining their faeces. Yesterday, Briantist made two edits (not reverts) adding the phrases "passes herself off as Doctor" and "known as the poo lady" to the first line. They were taken out by other editors, and Briantist kept restoring them. After the fourth revert, I left a message for him on his talk page[31] and also mentioned on the article talk page[32] that he had violated the rule. I suggested that he should revert himself in order to avoid being blocked. He made no attempt to revert himself, but replied that the rule "doesn't apply if you are restoring items that have references which are being replaced by opinion."[33], and added "Also, it's not me who appears on TV every week at about 830pm forcing people to smell and look at poo!"[34] ElinorD 12:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Further comments: Okay, there were lots of reports to deal with and nobody took any action on this one. Fair enough. But the problem continues.

    • 11:10 6 February Not a true reverts. He had been changing "Gillian McKeith" to "Gillian McKeith aka as the poo lady". This time, he changed it to "Scatalogically infamous Gillian McKeith"
    • 11:11 6 February He had been inserting "passes herself off as doctor". This time he inserted "who sells herself as Dr Gillian McKeith". While it's also not a true revert, it seems to be a revert in spirit at least.
    • 11:14 6 February This one is a revert, made under the pretext of reverting vandalism.

    It's no longer a 3RR issue. It was when I made the report, but his recent reverts were outside of the 24-hour period. But he's certainly revert warring, and I'd really appreciate if some administrator had time to look at the situation. I've also asked for help at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Thanks. ElinorD 12:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Still more:

    • 13:56 6 February Once again, inserted into the first line that she's known as the poo lady and passes herself off as doctor. Please, can someone stop this? Thanks. ElinorD 14:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It goes on:

    • 15:08 6 February Once again inserts "the poo lady" and "passes herself off as Dr" into the first line. Edit summary is "rvv - consensus does not matter it is following the RULES of EVIDENCE that does"

    I reported him for four reverts yesterday, and nothing was done. If we count "sells herself as Dr Gillian McKeith" as a revert, although his previous and subsequent edits used "passes herself off as", then he has made four reverts today in less than four hours, in spite of having been warned yesterday. Could someone please have a look at this? ElinorD 15:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick, uninvolved opinion: both the lack-of-doctorate and "poo lady" references should be in the lead section, woven into paragraph three where the discussion takes place. Both should be excised from the lead sentence. Please see WP:LEAD and help each other make this article better. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Five reverts today, and it still goes on

    • 15:26 6 February Edit summary: rvv - my edit follows the rules, and trumps OPINION

    Reply to RadioKirk - Everybody on the talk page agrees that the lack-of-doctorate should be in the lead, and it is. Briantist keeps changing

    "(also known as Dr Gillian McKeith although she does not have an accredited doctorate)"
    to
    (aka the poo lady) (also passes herself off as Dr Gillian McKeith but does not have an accredited doctorate)"

    Regarding "the poo lady", we are discussing it on the talk page, and agree that the article should mention that her critics call her that, but not in the first sentence.

    Meanwhile, Briantist, having got away with four reverts yesterday, has just made his fifth revert today, ninth revert in total. It looks as if nobody is going to do anything about it, which is very disappointing. ElinorD 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Then you both are guilty of WP:3RR violations as this is a content dispute. I have taken the liberty of being proactive and rewriting the lead per WP:LEAD; I presume this passes muster? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm happy with your rewrite, and hope it will do something to solve the problem, I'm very surprised and disappointed to see you say that we are both guilty of 3RR violations. I made three reverts today. My last revert before that was about twenty-four hours prior to the first one I made today. I made five posts here, asking for help, and nothing was done. I also made two posts at the talk page of WP:BLP here, requesting help or advice, making it clear that I wanted to do the right thing, that I wanted to understand the policy better, and that if an administrator told me to just leave it, I would do so. I used the article discussion page to explain politely what my objections were, and everybody except Briantist seemed to object to having "the poo lady" and "passes herself off as Dr" in the first sentence. My last revert (which was my third, not my fourth) came only after I had repeatedly asked for advice from experienced Wikipedians, and had received no reply except one from you (above) which said that those two things should be excised from the lead sentence. Meanwhile, Briantist made four reverts in a period of 24 hours, was defiant when I warned him and insisted that he was within policy. He then made five reverts within the space of a new 24 hours (actually, within the space of four and a quarter hours), accusing others of vandalism in his edit summaries, and saying that consensus didn't matter. Then I get wrongly accused of a 3RR violation, while the person who blatantly and defiantly engaged in multiple violations on the pretext of "reverting vandalism" simply gets a message saying that you trust that your rewrite "will promote working together to make the article better." [35]
    I'm concerned that Briantist, having insisted that he was reverting vandalism, and that he was within policy, seems to have his position strengthened by the disinclination of any andministrator to tell him that he was outside of policy (I'm completely happy for administrators to decide not to block in some cases), and will simply continue to "rvv" and to say that consensus doesn't matter. I'm tempted to ask for another administrator to take a look, but it's probably best if I drop the matter now. It's probably also better for me not to come back here to report his tenth, eleventh, and twelfth violations. I'm positive I did the right thing in bringing it here, regardless of the way it turned out, and I did ask for advice about reverting him, but wasn't given any. I'm going to take this page off my watchlist, as I don't want to be tempted to reply to any replies. I'm sure administrors don't want report pages clogged up with discussions, and I apologise for having written so much. Thanks for your rewrite of the lead section, anyway. I'll continue to post on the talk page of that article. ElinorD 16:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The report is a clear 3RR violation, aggravated by Briantist's continuing in the same spirit after being reported, so I'm going to block for 24 hours. There was no violation on ElinorD's part. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, SlimVirgin, but I have to disagree; as has been stated many times by many administrators and other editors, WP:3RR is not a limit so much as it is a guide designed to help those of us who are here to keep edit wars from disrupting Wikipedia. Both of these users were, to me, equally guilty of this disruption, and ElinorD appeared (again, to me) to be intentionally stopping short of a fourth reversion in order that the other could be reported here. Rather than block one or the other (or both), I tried to take the proactive step and find common ground that was both acceptable to all involved and beneficial to the encyclopedia. Your block of Briantist follows said proactive step and an apparently productive edit to the article in its wake, and strikes me as punitive. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi RK, thanks for your note. With respect, I don't agree with your line of reasoning. It's the 3RR, not 2RR, policy. I take your point about editing warring, but Briantist was adding material that arguably violated BLP, and people do have to be allowed to revert in this and in other circumstances. Briantist continued to revert after being asked to revert himself and after being reported on this page, which aggravated the original violation. If we can't block for 3RR in these circumstances, we can't block in any. For the policy to mean anything, it has to be enforced. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Briefly: I'm a powerful proponent of WP:BLP, as you know, and this was not such an issue; it wasn't what Briantist was adding (the data is properly sourced), it was its placement. I cited WP:LEAD (the appropriate issue, to my mind) in presenting a rewrite designed to stop what was, to my mind, a simple edit war over a simple content dispute. Comments? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Placement is an issue in BLP and Briantist's edits were problematic in that respect. But regardless of that, it was a clear 3RR violation, and I believe the rule ought to be enforced; otherwise, why have it. Elinor didn't do anything untoward that I can see. If she had reverted three times, waited ten minutes over the "limit," reverted a fourth time, then turned up here to report someone else who'd reverted four times within the limit, I could see your point about treating both parties equally, but nothing like that happened. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I only found "passes herself off as" problematic, but this appears to be a matter of a difference in perception; same with waiting a few minutes versus waiting until the next day. I'll defer, but I remain in respectful disagreement. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Elinor to RadioKirk's accusations:

    You suggest that I was "intentionally stopping short of four reverts" so that I could report Briantist here. I had made only two reverts at the time that I made this report.

    In fact, I had reverted only once when Briantist made his fourth revert, and I asked him to revert himself in order to avoid a block, and he replied by saying that he doesn't appear on TV every week forcing people to smell and look at poo, making it clear that he had no intention of respecting policy. It was only after his rather provocative response that I reverted him (my second revert) and reported it here, so I'm quite shocked at the accusation that I was guilty of disruption, and at the suggestion that I intentionally stopped short of a fourth revert in order to report him here. I reverted him a second time and reported him only after his blatant disdain for policy as shown by his response to my warning that he had made four reverts, and my offer to give him a chance to self revert. My second revert was at 11:28, and my report here was at 12:11. After that second revert, I did not revert again for 23 hours and 45 minutes, so I hope you'll see how utterly unjust it is to say that I seemed to be intentionally stopping short of four reverts so that I could report him here. Also, my third and fourth reverts (in total, not in 24 hours)

    changed

    • "Scatalogically infamous Gillian McKeith (who sells herself as Dr Gillian McKeith although she does not have an accredited doctorate)"
    to
    • "Gillian McKeith (also known as Dr Gillian McKeith although she does not have an accredited doctorate)"

    You say above that you only found "passes herself off as" problematic. I simply can't believe that an administrator thinks it's not problematic to start the article on a living nutritionist with "Scatalogically infamous Gillian McKeith". ("Scatological" is not even spelled correctly!) I honestly think you can't have seen that edit, although I reported it quite clearly, which suggests that you haven't researched this thoroughly. (That's evident anyway, from your inaccurate statement that I was guilty of a 3RR violation, your unjust accusation that I was "disruptive" (when I constantly asked for help and advice, and when I indicated that I wanted to do the right thing and would leave it if an administrator told me to); and your equally unjust suggestion that I intentionally stopped short of a fourth revert so that I could report him, when in fact I had reverted twice, had offered him a chance to self revert, and did not revert again for nearly 24 hours.)

    I admit that I reverted three times today, 24 hours after I first asked for help at this noticeboard. In the meantime I had also asked for advice elsewhere, and had not received any. It's worth noting that two of today's reverts were removals of the words "Scatalogically infamous" from the first sentence.[36] [37]

    I hope that other administrators at least will agree that when you have an editor who makes a fourth revert, flippantly refuses to undo it when he's told he has violated 3RR, then makes five new reverts to the same section the next day, in the space of less than four hours, constantly using "rvv" in his edit summary, being rude on the talk page, and making it clear that he has no intention of listening to the other editors, and you have another editor politely discusses her objections in the talk page, who asks him to self revert (after his fourth revert) rather than reporting it here, then makes her second revert when he refuses, then reports it here and asks for help, then requests advice (unsuccessfully) at the BLP talk page, then makes three more reverts, without violating the rule, and when you consider that the editor who violated the rule so blatantly was inserting stuff about the "scatalogically [sic.] infamous" "poo lady" into the opening sentence of an article about a living person, and the other editor was trying to take it out, it is extremely unhelpful to suggest that both editors are "equally guilty" of disruption. I hope you will withdraw your accusation that I violated 3RR, and your suggestion that I was being disruptive and that I intentionally stopped short of four reverts so that I could report him. They are all false, and if it weren't for SlimVirgin (whom I'd like to thank) I would have been left with a very negative impression of the experience of asking administrators for help and advice when I had a problem. ElinorD 00:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I was referring to actual reverts, as opposed to the earlier reentry of data in violation of WP:BLP; the report was for 3RR, and I treated this case specifically from the standpoint of 3RR, which I maintain gave the appearances of a two-party edit war in which you were the second party. If that is wrong, I apologize; however, my intent in treating the 3RR issue as a separate, distinct entity from past issues was to move it from the past and into the future. Stopping an edit war by blocking one or both parties is counterproductive as often as it is productive, and I saw an opportunity to not only stop a war, but to fix it. Other than actually writing an encycyclopedia, I like to think that's why I do what I do here. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears RadioKirk is attempting to keep in mind that the Encyclopedia comes first, and the Rules should serve that end; too much reliance on the Rules without looking at the larger situation can lead to harming, not helping, the Encyclopedia. All of which is a Good Thing. That said, I think RK took one step back for a larger view, where two steps back would have brought into clearer view BLP. ElinorD is not in violation of 2RR, or 3RR, or edit warring, and would not be had she removed "poo lady" 4 times or 5 times or 999 times. Removing defamatory material from a BLP is not edit warring, any more than reverting vandalism is edit warring - which also is not a violation of 3RR, even if the vandalism is reverted 999 times. Poo lady is clearly unacceptable in the intro, as instead of reporting a highly derogatory (and probably actionable) label with due attribution, it placed Wikipedia in the position of actionable name-calling ourselves. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To which you're entitled; however, as "poo lady" unquestionably does belong in the article (though unquestionably not in the lead, as my rewrite noted), I saw a content dispute, plain and simple. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is, RadioKirk, that you made a false accusation that I had violated 3RR, and then you said that I seemed to be equally guilty of disruption as Briantist, and that I seemed to be intentionally stopping short of four reverts so that I could report him here. All of those accusations or insinuations are false, and it has been quite an unpleasant experience for me to see those statements. You said that you apologised IF you were wrong, which does little or nothing to take away the injustice that you have done to me, as the "IF" leaves open the possibility that you are not wrong. I have never been accused of disruption in my life, and I actually gazed in disbelief when I saw that here. The history of the page shows clearly that I did not violate the rule. The timing also shows clearly that I did not stop short of four reverts in order to report him. As I have already said, I had made only one revert when he made his fourth, I asked him to revert himself in order to avoid a block, and it was only when he refused (telling me that HE doesn't appear on television forcing people to look at poo) that I made my second revert and reported him here. That's not a case of "IF" you're wrong; that's a case where you are wrong. Also, considering that my userpage shows that I joined on 17 January, and that Briantist seems to have been here a lot longer, that I was politely and calmly discussing on the talk page, sometimes even modifying my position in response to what other editors said, while he was responding with "Yawn", and being aggressive and being asked by other editors to calm down, considering that I asked for help at the talk page of WP:BLP and said I'd leave it if an administrator told me I should, considering that "scatologically infamous Gillian McKeith" in the opening sentence is completely unsourced and defamatory, and considering that Briantist reverted with "rvv" edit summaries, or with "consensus doesn't matter", do you not think you have committed an injustice in saying that we seemed to be equally guilty of disruption? Does it matter to you as an administrator that you have dampened some of the enthusiasm that I felt when I joined Wikipedia? Does it matter to you that you have left me feeling rather vulnerable as a newcomer? Does it matter to you that I may no longer feel comfortable going to an administrators' noticeboard for help, when I'm anxious to understand and follow policies?

    I do not feel happy that this noticeboard should be archived with your very unfair accusations left there, unretracted. Your previous post to me left me puzzled, as I was talking about the situtation that started with Briantist inserting

    "Gillian McKeith (aka the poo lady) (also passes herself off as Dr Gillian McKeith but does not have an accredited doctorate)"
    or
    "Scatalogically infamous Gillian McKeith (who sells herself as Dr Gillian McKeith although she does not have an accredited doctorate)"

    into the article, and finished with you accusing me of a 3RR violation, of disruption, and of stopping short of a fourth revert so that I could report him here.

    Your response "I was referring to actual reverts, as opposed to the earlier reentry of data in violation of WP:BLP . . . my intent in treating the 3RR issue as a separate, distinct entity from past issues was to move it from the past and into the future" makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't even know what you're talking about. My report dealt with the period from Briantist's first revert to his ninth. I was not referring to anything in the past. I joined that page on 4 February, and haven't looked at the history. I didn't refer to anything from the past in my report, and neither did you, so I can see your response only as a failure to deal with the issues that I brought up which are that I did not violate the rule, that I was not guilty of disruption, that I did not stop short of four reverts so that I could report him, and that, to me, starting an article with "Scatologically infamous Gillian McKeith (who sells herself as Dr Gillian McKeith although she does not have an accredited doctorate)" is a violation of BLP, as neither "scatologically infamous" nor "sells herself as" is sourced. Your reply about the past and the future have nothing to do with any of those points.

    As you have left me feeling rather hurt, and rather bitten, I would like you, as an administrator, to acknowledge, before this report is archived, that:

    • I did not violate the rule
    • I was not guilty of disruption, that I discussed calmly and politely on the talk page, and that I asked experienced editors for advice at the BLP talk page, indicating that I wanted to do the right thing and would leave it if an administrator told me to
    • The timing of the reverts and the report, combined with my offer, after my first revert, to allow him to undo his fourth revert to avoid a block, show that I did not stop short of four reverts in order to report him here
    • It is perfectly possible for a reasonable person to believe that starting an article with "scatologically infamous" and "sells herself as", without source, is in violation of WP:BLP and should be reverted.

    Every administrator I had come across had been patient, helpful, and friendly — until my experience here, and I think you need to do something to undo that. But I am far more interested in a retraction than an apology, and I am not at all interested in an "IF" apology, which leaves open the possibility that your hasty judgment was fair. ElinorD 14:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There are legitimate reasons I got the impression I did but, once the entirety of the situation is reviewed, that assessment was unfair and incorrect. My intent was to defuse a situation, not to create one. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zayd reported by User:ElKevbo (Result:)

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

    Comments: This user has not been specifically warned against the 3RR but editors have engaged him or her in discussion about the revert war over this article (and others).

    Warned. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jeff dean reported by User:evb-wiki (Result: 8h)

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

    Comments: This user has specifically stated his intent to maintain an edit war on the Motorcycle page. --Evb-wiki 16:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8h William M. Connolley 19:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MakeChooChooGoNow reported by User:Doco (Result: 8h)

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


    - * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    58]


    Comments: User has stated on article talk page that he "owns" article and would not allow changes to be made.

    8h William M. Connolley 19:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bless_sins reported by User:Beit_Or (Result: 24 hrs)

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

    Comments: The page history seems to show a multi-sided tag team edit war. Probably best to protect the page until the waring sides reach some sort of consensus. Abu ali 22:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hrs. Defintiely 4 reverts. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And the page was also protected, per Abu ali's recommendation. Isarig 04:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad we can agree on something:-)Abu ali 09:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Second revert was vadalisum. Why you have still banned him. --- ALM 16:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aivazovsky reported by User:AdilBaguirov (Result:Page protected)

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

    Comments: Several users, going all the way back to August 2006, have requested user Aivazovsky (formerly known as user Clevelander) to provide solid, NPOV references for his claims on the Qazakh page. All additional sources he has provided have been shown, during the exhaustive Talk page discussions, to be either incorrect or misrepresented, and hence, after months of giving chance for him to either bring pages in conformity with facts or present NPOV references, the page has been edited to make it NPOV. However, user Aivazovsky has reverted it at least 4 times, and only immitates discussion in the Talk page, being disinterested in the NPOV facts, and apparently wanting to promote and preserve his POV. --AdilBaguirov 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I should make a defense for myself here. It should be noted that these "several users" Adil keeps referring to are all Azerbaijani. They dislike the fact that I'm using an NPOV source, Andrew Andersen to disprove their claims. I also think that it would be unfair to block me for this as two of my reverts occured on the 5th and the other two occured on the 6th. If you ask me, I think Adil is the real problem here. Since last week, he has specifically targetted Armenian articles or articles related to Armenian-Azeri relations that had delicate compromises in place on them. Immediately, Adil set to work on changing articles to suit his point of view. He has also engaged in heated exchanges with other Armenian editors as well, often times provoking them to respond. He has even removed information from the Qazakh regarding the attitude Azerbaijanis had towards the loss of Nakhichevan as proposed by Sir John Oliver Wardrop, British Chief Commissioner of the Caucasus. This was part of the reason why I had to revert him. He was distorting the facts. It is Adil who should be blocked not me. I have proved to be a constructive and objective editor on Wikipedia. Ask anybody who I've worked with. Please don't do this to me. I don't deserve it. I am appealing to the best judgement in all Wikipedian editors. -- Aivazovsky 02:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Adil this is a place to report 3RR don't bring in disputes here, Aivazovsky reverted him self and assumed good faith. Also he has been discussing his edits, he provided a historian reference, but nothing is good to your terms obviously or any reference basically at all if they go against yours, we also fixed the paragraph added both into there, but your still not satisfied and maybe even mad because its been protected so you cannot revert. Nareklm 03:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected. Khoikhoi 03:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stuchan reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result:24h)

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

    Comments:

    24h. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KazakhPol reported by Khoikhoi (Result:12h)

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

    Comments: Not a new user, been blocked for 3RR before. Khoikhoi 05:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    12h; and Khoikhoi - you were revert-warring too. WP:3RR doesn't give you the license the revert three times. You should know better. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BenBurch reported by User:Tbeatty (Result:)

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

    He's been blcoked before for edit warring. He is also aware he is in violation as he has at least two self-reverts to avoid 3RR that I did not include in this report. --Tbeatty 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Totally different parts of the article. User:TBeatty won't discuss changes in talk and keeps removing sourced and relevant sections without discussion in tag-team with User:DeanHinnen. Where User:TBeatty has finally discussed his changes adequately, I have re-made his edits. Block me if you want, but I am trying to edit this article in a civil fashion asking that the changes be discussed as they seem to be drastic and to have a POV of some sort behind them. --BenBurch 15:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For example. First revert was an edit I subsequently re-made when User:Tbeatty actually discussed and explained it. --BenBurch 15:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Second revert (third too, and a component of fourth) was being discussed in talk and the consensus was against the change. Tbeatty made the change again, and has removed that verbage in tag-team with DeanHinnen a number of times now. They seem to have decided that they can just push this change onto the other editors who object to it no matter what the discussion comes up with. --BenBurch 15:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fourth revert was an omnibus edit none of which was discussed in advance as had clearly been asked for. Sourced material consistent with BLP being removed all under the false allegation that it all amounted to a "Willie Horton" allegation. I know what a "Willie Horton" allegation is, and it does not cover this removal. Four components here; 1. Molly Ivins comment; Nationally syndicated writer makes a comment about a nationally covered election faux pas and it is notable, and not any sort of "Willie Horton" attack. 2. An attempt to re-remove the information about the politician's stand on abortion that is sourced and accurate based on some parsing of the words to infer a POV push that is just not there as the politician has said this himself. 3. Politician was contradicted by the former head of the Bar Association as reported by the Tribune - Also not a Willie Horton. 4. Spelling error. --BenBurch 16:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fifth revert identical to Fourth, including spelling error. Nothing had been discussed as clearly and politely asked for. I am trying my level best to be a civil editor in this article, and to improve the article, but there is major league hostility here on the part of these two editors. Go read the discussion in the talk page, please. Now, as I see the log I could have filed 3RR against either of these other two editors but I chose instead to ask for civil discussion. And what is to be done when editors decide to ignore discussion on a change and just force that change on the other editors of the piece by reversion? That is what is happening here. So, block me if you want to. I think I am being civil and constructive here and am trying to do a good job. --BenBurch 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Three of the five edits cited by Tbeatty replaced the same phrase regarding the rape/incest exception in abortion law. 3RR is not a license to engage in edit warring while carefully limiting yourself to make three reverts in 24 hours.
    This editor has followed us from the Free Republic page where a similar content dispute has been raging for several weeks, and has made other contentious reverts on Peter Roskam regarding legal campaign contributions by law-abiding citizens, which are not notable. These are simply attempts at guilt by association against Mr. Roskam, violating WP:BLP and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. It is clear that this editor is seeking to engage in an edit war despite his protests to the contrary. Dino 16:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that I have been watching the Roskam article for ages as his district borders on mine. I followed nobody anywhere, and in fact was reluctant to even work on this article because these two editors were there. And it looks like my reticence was well founded in this case. --BenBurch 17:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR applies to reverts to the same article in 24 hours, not just the same section. You are aware of this because A) you've been here long enough and B) you self-reverted a number of times in different sections. I'm sure you believe you had good reasons to ignore the 3RR policy but the violation stands as it is. --Tbeatty 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Request - Please adjudicate this and give me whatever block I deserve. I will hence forth submit to the rule of WP:1RR. Thank you. --BenBurch 21:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cricketguru reported by User:The Rambling Man (Result: Warned)

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


    Comments: A number of similar reverts have been made by the following users, although insufficient to breach WP:3RR:

    1. User:Saintlaurence
    2. User:Wiki-auto-edit
    3. User:Cricketguru
    4. User:Wikipedia-master-edit
    5. User:80.135.125.114
    6. User:80.135.84.168
    7. User:80.135.93.80
    Comment from Dweller - this is a newbie being ignorant of and getting frustrated with Wikipedia rules and trying hamfistedly to get around them. I've been chatting with him through my talk page and I think (hope) he's now got the message. His behaviour has been appalling, but I think he may have turned the corner. If I might humbly suggest, a carefully worded stern admin warning will hopefully be sufficient on this occasion, with these citations held over for any recurrence. --Dweller 12:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the warning was just two minutes before he made his last revert, so he made not have seen it in time. I'll leave a warning. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Solaariz dayz reported by User:AnonMoos (Result:)

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

    Comments: Sock-puppet of long-term persistent "Iraqi dinar" vandal (see Talk:Rafida); a former alias of his User talk:No problem 1254 was previous blocked for doing exactly the same thing on Rafida.

    • He's committed yet another revert on Rafida since the above. Please block him! He's the same as "No problem 1254" blocked above on this page with the same MO. AnonMoos 17:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AnonMoos, we need to see actual diffs of the reverts. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TipPt reported by User:Avraham (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Comments: User is very experienced and is well aware of WP:3RR. I have not performed the block myself to prevent accusations of impropriety. -- Avi 15:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Offical reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 8h)

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

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

    Warned before last revert:

    Comments:

    8h William M. Connolley 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Exucmember reported by User:Guettarda (Result: no block)

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

    Comments:

    • The first revert is to this version (info about the publisher removed), while the other 4 reverts are to this version of his (cited information related to links to Unification Church removed). Although the 5th revert was self-reverted, there are still 4 reverts on the page
    • He has also been edit-warring at the Icons of Evolution article, which he has reverted 3 times in the same time frame

    Given the self-rv, no block William M. Connolley 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shuppiluliuma reported by User:Domitius (Result:48H block)

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

    Comments:

    • The user has been blocked for violating the 3RR just recently, see here.--Domitius 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User was blocked for 48 hours for this violation. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shuppiluliuma (again) reported by User:Calgacus (Result:48H)

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


    Comments:

    • The fourth revert above is his removal of a tag which I added instead of reverting again. User has violated 3RR on numerous ocassions today, see also Constantinople, as well as Istanbul article history where he was reverting on different issues I don't have time to list. User:Rarelibra, whom Shuppiluliuma styled "illiterate", has opened a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shuppiluliuma. Apparently he doesn't care about the 3RR rule. He got a 24 hour block a few days ago for a similar offence. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 48H for violation on Constantinople. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saturdayseven reported by User:JereKrischel (Result:24H for both users)

    Three-revert rule violation on Race, Evolution and Behavior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:Saturdayseven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    13:43 Feb 6

    • 6th revert:

    14:28 Feb 6


    Comments: Got in protracted edit war with new editor. Have also violated 3RR in the process of trying to communicate more effectively, and reported myself below. Probably best to have admin give a neutral warning on his talk page, explaining WP:3RR - isn't listening to other editors for the article opposed to his edits, so third party might help communicate better. --JereKrischel 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are you reporting me for a violation you admit that you are also guilty of? True, you're also reporting yourself, but this seems like a huge waste of administrator time. Saturdayseven
    Blocked both users for 24 hours. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:JereKrischel reported by User:JereKrischel (Result:24H)

    Three-revert rule violation on Race, Evolution and Behavior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:JereKrischel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    Got carried away with a new user, hoping to find some sort of consensus and discussion, but failed. Self reverted after several-hour edit war, beg forgiveness. --JereKrischel 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I do appreciate the honesty. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Donteatyellowsnow reported by User:Ckatz (Result:24h)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: (removal of "Essay-opinion"/"Unbalanced" templates - other content changes w/edits but report is solely based on templates)
    • 1st revert: [38]
    • 2nd revert: [39]
    • 3rd revert: [40]
    • 4th revert: [41]
    • 5th revert: [42]
    • 6th revert: [43]
    • 7th revert: [44]

    Comments: Warnings for 3RR issued by two editors (here, here and here). This is my first use of the 3RR system - please let me know if you require other information. (FYI - myself, this user, and several other editors are involved in a content dispute at Runaway production and Hollywood North.) --Ckatzchatspy 01:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was unaware that Ckatz had already posted this until I arrived to make the same report. You can add this revert[46] to the list. Agent 86 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above two people Agent 86 and User:Ckatz have been having a hostile editing war and reverting ALMOST anything that I edit, especially Agent 86. (see the deletions/reverts Agent 86 made to Lou Dobbs page as well as to mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's page). These people are Canadian nationalists with a specific agenda and they have attacked many of my edits repeatedly in an editing war that THEY started by trying to water down or destroy and vandalize several of my edits. I would like to report them for their repeated REVERTS if they are going to report me. I have given sources and direct quotes for most if not all of my edits which they find controversial; so I disagree with their attack in every respect. I must also add that they keeping putting POV and ESSAY tags on this article which cites all its sources and yet they have not made edits that cite any sources for their perspective -- they only delete mine and repeatedly tag the article with Editorial Tags and warnings. They have also misused warnings and have used them as a weapon to try to keep me from contributing to Wiki. Donteatyellowsnow
    • For the record, I too have restored the repeatedly deleted POV and essay tags on this article. I believe the messages featured in these templates are important in moving forward and have encouraged discussion. Victoriagirl 05:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added an 8th revert which he did after several warnings. This user habitiually removes his warnings from his talk page. As you will see, he has had several people complain about his contributions from personal attacks to NPOV issues. I feel this user's trolling to articles is vandalism. Mkdwtalk 06:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    10:45, 7 February 2007 Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Donteatyellowsnow (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (revert warring on Runaway Productions) — Nearly Headless Nick 11:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, the reverts were revertions of reversions -- these people were ganging up (and gaming the system) to revert things of mine. They were also reversions of TAGS, the removal or addition of which does NOT constitute vandalism under Wiki's guidelines. I feel that I was unfairly blocked and that no action was taken against the above people who have ganged up against and attacked this editor (and who, the minute they thought I was blocked, began to delete my OTHER contributions from pages OTHER than the contested ones as well as the ones to those pages) -- deleting content from Wiki which WAS vandalism on their part. - Donteatyellowsnow 07:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KazakhPol reported by User:Mardavich (Result: 31hours)

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

    Comments: Was just blocked for 3RR yesterday. --Mardavich 04:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked again, for immediately picking up a revert war where he left it off, right after the previous block expired. Note that of the 5 listed above, three were before the first block, but with the 2 new ones it still makes 5 in a 25-hour period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The implication is that the previous block was inadequate for stopping the revert war. Beit Or 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wiki-newbie reported by 82.2.139.211 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (Result:Warned)

    Three-revert rule violation on Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (film)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wiki-newbie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    - * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.


    Comments: A severe case of WP:OWN - refusing to accept or discuss reclassification of an "importance" tag on an article.

    Further: The user has on 2 occasions removed this notice from this page -- please exercise caution to ensure he doesnt repeat the action. Thanks.

    My apologies. At this point I wasn't aware of the rule. Wiki-newbie 19:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, at this point, I think a warning suffices. Mangojuicetalk 20:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xenophrenic reported by User:TDC (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Vietnam Veterans Against the War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).


    Comments:

    Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is also under Arbitration Committee sanction for Revert Parole. The final decision in their case is here: [48].As per the Arbcom decision Xenophrenic may not perform more than one content revert in any 24 hour period, and must discuss any content revert. A Checkuser found it likely that Xenophrenic is also the anonymous IP mentioned in the ArbCom case [49]. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vintagekits reported by User:Couter-revolutionary (Result:Warned)

    Three-revert rule violation on Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [50]


    Comments:

    • It was 1 edit and two reverts. This editor needs to get a real grasp of WP:3RR. The edit in question deleted a quote which added nothing to the article (and which was not referenced not that that matters) and add two fact tags.--Vintagekits 23:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a strict 3RR violation. However, he made 3 identical edits, including fact tags on a referenced statement. He did not resolve through talk before continuing to revert. I've warned him not to edit war, and also not to taunt. Tyrenius 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Viriditas reported by User:Arcayne (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Children of Men. Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [51]

    this is the version prior to the constant reverts.

    • Warning: This user was given warning twice regarding 3rr, but as the user is an editor, it can be assumed that he was well aware that he was violating the rule.

    Comments: All of he reverts by Viriditas have been to remove a few statements at the end of the plot synopsis of the article. He is an editor, and has been warned about violating 3RR. He has not responded to numerous efforts to leaven the situation or to cooperative efforts to find middle ground. When approached numerous times to defuse the situation on his talk page, he has chosen to simply blank the comments, add rude commentary, and proceed as if no effort was made. He has taken no steps whatsoever to avoid edit warring behavior.While another editor on the piece feels that the statement should remain, he has chosen to ignore this concensus and revert (essentially, it could also be deemed vandalism). A number of times before, he has skirted the edge of 3rr by terming his reversions minor edits. As this person is an editor, it sets a bad tone. Lastly, another editor called for the comments to remain while independent evaluations were perfromed. Viriditas disregarded this request to disengage and reverted the article yet again.Arcayne 04:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think this is a violation. The first edit appears not to have been a revert, except in the sense that, because the edit removed something, there was probably a previous version somewhere along the line that didn't contain that material, but I can't see that Viriditas or anyone else had actually removed that material before. The links given as the first and second reverts, 11:43 and 11:55, are back-to-back and therefore both count as the first edit. After that we have just three reverts: 21:02, 23:04, and 00:25. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would submit that the first edit was in fact a revert, although Viriditas was cautious to avoid actually saying it was a revert. His edit summary: "Remove non-diegetic reference: "Titles, subtitles, and voice-over narration (with some exceptions) are...non-diegetic"; however, the text that he removed as "diegetic" was in fact the same material he removed in his other reversions. Grouping the first and second instance as one revert, I guess I can see - but from looking at the diff one can see the previous version on the left, and the Viriditas' reverted version on the right. As you explained that you could not see where he had removed this same material before, I should clarify that this has been going back and forth for days, with Viriditas mostly only reverting once or twice a day. An example of one of these prior reverts can be found here, here, here and finally here. You will note that these prior occurrences also constitute a 3RR violation ( and different from those cited in the complaint), Viriditas has carefully avoided using the word revert while systematically performing precisely that action. These examples indicate that he had reverted this same material on several prior occasions, and offered different edit summaries to conceal his pattern of reverting edits. That he violated 3RR this time means he simply wasn't counting his reverts, or expected them to go unnoticed.Arcayne 10:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Quadzilla99 reported by User:Clipper471 (Result:)

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


    Comments: Quadzilla99 removed text that has been proven with references. I have discussed this on Quadzilla99's Talk page by asking that he not remove information that has been proven, and that if he has a different point of view, to discuss it on the article's Talk page. He continued to revert and will not discuss the topic rationally. Clipper471 02:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quadzilla99 has now removed warnings from his Talk page twice. Clipper471 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though he has been warned, Quadzilla99 continues to revert.. He was warned at 02:18, he deleted the warning from his talk page at 02:28, and then he made another revert to the article at 02:29. Clipper471 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize continually re-inserting warnings on a user's talk page after he/she has deleted them is considered harassment. Quadzilla99 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually he is the one in violation of the 3 revert rule as he removed sourced information and inserted original research 5 times. The dispute is whether Derek Fisher's shot against the Spurs in 2004 was controversial. As Fisher made a shot with .4 seconds left on the clock to win the game. Originally he responded to me on my talk page that at the time according to the rules with .4 seconds left a player could only make a tip in or lob play which is completely incorrect (see Trent Tucker Rule) then he stated that the clock didn't start on time (he has no sources for this, it appears to be his opinion). The Spurs challenged the play but they didn't have the benefit of replay (coaches incorrectly challenge plays in American football over and over and often they are shown conclusively to be incorrect, this does not make the play controversial) I provided two sources (one an AP report and one from Washington Post) whcih state "replays show the shot was released in time". He removes it again and says that because we are debating it, that's proof it's controversial. He tries to find evidence and uses the sources I added he inserts this statement from Derek Fisher, "I normally have point-four (seconds) to turn and shoot, so I was halfway into my shot as I was catching the ball" as proof that Fisher admitted he didn't get the shot off in time. Let's ignore for a second that Fisher himself did not know whether he got it off in time (Unless he has some stopwatch like timer in head) all that says is he regularly makes shots with .4 on the clock and he turned to make the shot. Basically he needs one reliable source to say it was controversial or that it wasn't released in time, the fact that the Spurs initially disputed it doesn't make it controversial coaches dispute calls 100x a week in American football. He doesn't have any sources so he keeps reverting the article and inserting thye Fisher statement with the phrase "Fisher admitted, "I normally have point-four (seconds) to turn and shoot, so I was halfway into my shot as I was catching the ball"". What does Fisher admit there? That he regularly mnakes shots with .4 seconds left? Quadzilla99 02:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The information was original to the article. Quadzilla99 removed the text without a proper discussion. (The article he uses as a source even shows that the Spurs protested the shot because the clock did not start when it was supposed to. (I even referenced the article, and he is claiming I have no source?) A discussion has started on the Talk page. Until it can be resolved with other editors, I suggest that the original text "controversial" along with the references remain. If the discussion sees otherwise, then delete it. The bottom line here is that Quadzilla99 deleted original text, someone objected to its deletion and invited a discussion to settle it, but he won't accept that. Clipper471 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and he only gave me warnings after I warned him.Quadzilla99 02:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically he's vandalizing the article, AP report: "replays showed Fisher got off the shot in time."[52] Washington Post:"The miraculous bucket, which was reviewed on video by all three game officials and declared good,"[53], see the article and our talk pages for further details. Quadzilla99 03:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What a complete liar. The article never says the clock didn't start when it was supposed to, it says the Spurs claimed it didn't start when it was supposed to. All replays showed it to be good. Again find me one article stating replays showed the shot wasn't good by even one sportswriter. Quadzilla99 03:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 1 with exact verbiage Quadzilla99 keeps removing: "So, while his teammates rushed to view a replay of Derek Fisher's controversial game-winning shot, the Spurs' guard sat quietly alone in the locker room, considering what might have been had Fisher misfired with his desperation jumper." ("Parker perplexed once again", San Antonio Express-News, Tom Osborn, May 14, 2004) Clipper471 04:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 2: "The Los Angeles Lakers brought Hollywood to San Antonio on Thursday night, complete with suspense, action - and some might argue a robbery." ("S.A. is heartbreak city", San Antonio Express-News, Amy Dorsett, May 14, 2004) Clipper471 04:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I never once removed those two sources he just now added them and I never removed them. Quadzilla99 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The article says the Spurs claimed the clock did not start in time. There was 0.4 second on the clock before the ball was inbounded. Not starting the clock in time, even if by one-tenth of a second, would have negated the shot. That's the claim. It's a human element. The official is human. Controversey? Absolutely. Clipper471 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place for this discussion, hence, I will not respond to Quadzilla's comments pertaining to the controversey here anymore. That discussion is currently being made at the Spurs Talk page, which I might add, other editors aggree that it's a controversy. The fact remains that Quadzilla99 has violated the 3RR. And I have reported it to the admins. Clipper471 03:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most editors agree it's not a controversy actually. Quadzilla99 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it the word "controversial" that was removed four times? If so, we need to see a link showing it being removed before; otherwise, I count the first diff as an edit, not a revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:209.181.235.197 reported by User:Seraphimblade (Result: warning)

    Three-revert rule violation on Marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.181.235.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: The anonymous editor has come to the talk page to discuss now, and did self-revert h(is|er) last revert after being asked to do so. Please take this under consideration when reviewing. Seraphimblade 03:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He's shown willing by reverting himself, so I'll leave a warning. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:141.149.208.54 reported by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

    Three-revert rule violation on Percy Julian. 141.149.208.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Editor keeps inserting POV data and info not supported by the science. Julian made an early batch of synthetic estrogen and supplied it to Upjohn, but was not involved with the synthetic orally active estrogens used in birth control pills. He is a great steroid chemist but was never involved in the BCP. Help in reverting the damage would be useful.
    Richard, we need the diffs showing the actual reverts, and a link to the version reverted to. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lear 21 reported by Lucas (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on European Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lear 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    You need 4R in 24h. This isn't close William M. Connolley 20:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ed g2s reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result:warning)

    Three-revert rule violation on List of Heroes episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ed g2s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments: Multiple reverts removing images, the editor insists his edits are based on policy but consensus disagrees with his interpretation of it. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ed originally violated 3RR this morning (Starting from here, I asked him to stop on the talk page, he however did not seem interested (but did reply). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have put a warning on his talk page (done independently of this notice). Cburnett 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TrueFuzz reported by User:Xhantar (Result: no block)

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


    Comments:

    • Please note that the account User:BoydBowen has been accused of sockpuppetry: evidence
    • User is not interested in any of the info provided on his user talk page with regards to the dispute resolution process, requests for mediation, etc.
    • User has been warned before
    • User continues disruptive behavior by blanking his user talk page, removing relevant warnings
    • Abusive and uncivil edit summaries

    The 3rd feb edits are essentially stale, and you should be reporting BB for them anyway. Its not 3RR since. I see abusive edit summaries from the 6th for which he has been warned but none since then William M. Connolley 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Halaqah reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 48 hours)

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

    • Editor has been blocked for 3RR twice before. Was warned that his "I'm just reverting vandalism" defense would not work, and that this would end up on the WP:AN/3RR page if he didn't stop,[58], but he reverted again anyway. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours. JoshuaZ 21:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Somethingoranother reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 24 hours)

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

    It's a clear violation and he was warned. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.46.234.44 same as User:52-DSL reported by User:Jossi (Result:24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Prem Rawat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.46.234.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) same user as 52-DSL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comment

    Note that these two users are one and the same as can be seen here and here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs)

    wutever man ur trying to make every1 who disagrees wit u dissappear i dont see how linking edits from 2 different names is proof that that person should be banned u told me there wuz a 3 revert rule and i read it and did 3 reverts and asked u 2 talk it out and instead of talking it out u cum crying hear to get me banned b/c u cant defend ur position oh btw i like how u told me u were gunna report me but linked me to the wrong part of the board so i had a hard time finding this report nice move 52-DSL 01:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 24 hours. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SY0017 reported by User:Bulbous (Result:24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Neil Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SY0017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: Repeated attempts to push unsourced name change and other vandalism including page blanking.

    24h. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Phunbot reported by User:Wryspy (Result:24h)

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


    Comments: User Phunbot has quickly escalated to edit warring against multiple editors, hurling remarks like "rv-It doesn't matter if you had a 1,000 editors in agreeance" regarding policy and writing style. Phunbot reports having used Wikipedia for years despite recent use of the Phunbot name.

    24h. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:A Man In Black reported by User:Abs Like Jesus (Result:12h and 3h)

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

    Comments: 12h for AMIB, 3h for Abs Like Jesus. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pernambuco reported by User:MariusM (Result:24h)

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: Not a new user

    Comments: User broke 3RR also few days ago but was pardoned. He received a warning [60].--MariusM 09:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24h. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Someguy0830 reported by User:MsHyde (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Electronic voice phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Someguy0830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments

    User:MsHyde reported by User:Someguy0830 (Result:)

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

    Comment: Please note that Someguy0830 was reverting dispute tags, and insulted me in edit summary. (Also, there was an AN/I report, and he continued to revert the dispute tags during the AN/I discussion. Also, he followed me around the the OR noticeboard and the science help desk, arguing, but then claimed he reverted the dispute tags because there was no dispute.)-MsHyde 10:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not arguing with you here. We're both guilty. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Please also note that in the diffs he has provided, the first two are the placement of a policy noncompliant tag. Then I sought outside opinions, and placed different tags-- dispute tags. I stopped at 3 replacements of the tags, and made a report to AN/I and then here. the article now has no dispute tags, and I have left it that way, to avoid violating 3RR, although there is a dispute. Other editors should be able to see the tags, and participate. This cannot happen if Someguy continually removes them. Also, he appears to be an established editor. I am a very new editor, and I do not think he thought I knew how to report him. I also believe he was trying to bully me, because of the insults. I think it would be better for the article if I am able to replace the dispute tags as soon as possible, and get discussion going with other editors while Someguy is unable to stymie discussion.-MsHyde 10:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hipocrite reported by User:Codex Sinaiticus (Result:Page protected)

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [09:30, 9 February 2007 09:30, 9 February 2007]


    Comments
    Four reverts in the space of 90 min., even after warning, repeatedly removing well-referenced charges against Mengistu that came up at his trial. Possible sock of same person who tries to do this periodically (Jacob Peters)?. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see one edit and three reverts. Can you explain how the first version you have produced is a revert? — Nearly Headless Nick 14:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Just look through the article history. The same statement has been repeatedly blanked by many other socks in recent weeks. I don't know when it was first added or by whom, but it has gone back and forth for quite some time. I added the most recent version that does NOT contain the statement as the "previous version" although there may be other differences aside from the presence of absence of that statement, it is still a revert. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP requires the removal of poorly sourced biographical information without attention to [[WP:3rr]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Without attention to 3RR". Yeah, that's what they all say. Your personal assessment of the source is disputed, so it's a content dispute. The source refers to numerous other sources, so it is well sourced. It is even in the genocide trial documents. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect! Provide them as a source and we can reinsert the information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unnecessary. This is a WELL-SOURCED website that apparently you personally have blacklisted because of your own personal political leanings. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I have not. I suggest you find better sources for your assertions of fact. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You aren't sharing by what criterion you have determined this website to be unreliable in your own personal assessment. What is your litmus test? Do they have to be approved by the Kremlin to be called reliable? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to discuss this with you at the talk page of the article, where I have laid out why the source in question fails WP:RS. In short, Editorial oversight, Replicability, Corroboration, and Recognition by other reliable sources are lacking. You said there were other sources. Let's use them.Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have protected the page. Please resolve your disputes amicably. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Smeelgova reported by User:Justanother (Result:No violation)

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


    Comments
    I gave him a nice warning last night here on his behavior on Keith Henson and he self-reverted here but now he is back to his pattern of "blind reverts"; repeatedly reverting another's good faith edits without discussion. --Justanother 20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The real problem is BabyDweezil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been warned before, and keeps deleting segments without discussing it first and wait for some agreement between the parties. I'm not sure if he is at his 3th or 4th revert. --Tilman 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While we may have disagreements over where the article should go and while we may not agree on edits, disruptive behavior needs to be strongly discouraged, and Smee needs to understand that objections to his actions of repeatedly reverting without evaluating are not based on POV but on the extremely disruptive nature of such bahavior. --Justanother 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had honestly waited what I thought was enough time, but perhaps it was not. I will self revert. My apologies. SELF REVERT DIFF HERE. Yours, Smee 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    The self-revert was un-needed as the article had already been reverted and is, in fact, just another example of reverting without evaluating. Rather than watch the clock to see when you can revert again, I suggest that you evaluate another's edits and discuss and make those specific changes you feel are appropriate. Stop "blindly" reverting everything! Please. --Justanother 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your interpretations of my actions are incorrect. The SELF REVERT is a show of good faith, whether or not it is necessary in and of itself. And I was not "blindly" reverting anything. I was responding to what I and multiple other editors have interpreted as vandalism and inappropriate behaviour and personal attacks by BabyDweezil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In any event, I will allow time for other editors to enter the fray, and I will cease any reverting for a while. Certainly if you had warned me again, I would have SELF REVERTED, again - and will continue to respond with good faith in this manner from other editors' good faith warnings. In fact, prior to this chain-of-events User:Jossi and I both showed good faith, and each reverted our own edits on an unrelated page, Lord of the Universe (documentary), even though it was not necessarily needed for both of us to go back in the edit history. Here is my DIFF, and Jossi's. Smee 21:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    I did warn you. Once. The point is that the system you are using is disruptive. I would describe that system as "blindly reverting without evaluating". The fact that you had to back-pedal after repeatedly reverting my valid edits on Henson shows me that there is an issue that you should address. Reporting it is my way of showing you that it is not my POV talking here. And to expect other editors to keep track of your reverts for you and warn you each time you overdo it so you can then "self-revert" is patently ridiculous. --Justanother 21:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The real problem is indeed BabyDweezil:
    • Lengthy prior discussions on ANI.
    • Ensuing block.
    • His attitude in response (see "24 hour virus").
    • After the block another warning issued within about 24 hours.
    • Another warning.
    • BabyDweezil and Justanother (the complainant) in a lengthy session of mocking those who were trying to get BabyDweezil adhere to the guidelines.
    There is still more.
    Smeelgova has merely been struggling to counteract destructive edits made by BabyDweezil. If he lost track of of whether 24 hours had passed or not, then he should at most be warned. His self-revert shows good faith. Neither should he considered to be the edit warrior in the case. In the the opinion of Bishonen (sorry, I can't find the diff right now) it was BabyDweezil who was the primary edit warrior in the dispute that led to his block, and BabyDweezil has resumed his exact same behaviors after the block expired. Tanaats 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tanaats, I take your deliberate misinterpretation of my comments to BabyDweezil made in my attempt to help him COMPLY with the wishes of the blocking admin; I take your misinterpetation as quite a pointed personal attack and attempt to defame me here in front of the Admin community. And deliberate misintepretation because I already responded and explained myself on the self-same referenced talk page. Shame on you. --Justanother 21:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your active participation in the "sidewalk superintendant" mockery is to me self-explanatory. However, I will respect the opinions of the admins (I presume that Bishonen will be asked her opinion) who consider this case. Tanaats 22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tanaats, I never doubted for a second that Justanother was mocking me in those comments, and in fact I believe I thanked him for the advice to me more than once. (I'm not going to look for the diffs because this whole thing is getting to childish). However, I might suggest editors take a look at WP:OWN. Without delving too deeply into psychobabble, I can't help think that some of the knee-jerk, trigger-happy angry reverts of my edits, as well as the hostile and distorted "complaints" that led to my brief Wikilynching are rooted in some sort of personal outrage that I have dared challenge a number of distorted bits of POV pushing that have been festering in a number of articles. BabyDweezil 22:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your active participation in the "sidewalk superintendant" mockery is to me self-explanatory. However, I will respect the opinions of the admins (I presume that Bishonen will be asked her opinion) who consider this case. Tanaats 22:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Justanother, your specific comment was "Just like that guy on the sidewalk. "Sidewalk superintendents", we used to call them back when I worked in a ditch up to my waist in water. Big help, they were too. Couldn't have done the job without 'em. Laff."
    1. You were the one who introduced the mocking and condescending "sidewalk superintendent" analogy a bit above that.
    2. You were the one who laughed about this mocking and condescending analogy.
    I won't respond further to this unless a responding admin wishes to discuss it further with me. Tanaats 22:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tanaats, I think that most anyone that reads what I wrote instead of just your excerpts and opinions can see what it was about and that BD found it helpful. I really have no more to say about it except it ain't so great when you help someone and then have it thrown back in your face. But, don't worry, I won't let it get me down. --Justanother 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I that case I will respond, after which I really will restrain myself. Your evident disrespect towards other editors is matched by your disrespect for administrators (Bishonen in this case) [61]:

    ...a group will generally defer to their lowest common denominator, the anonymity and concomitant lack of responsibility possible (note I say possible) in editors, especially non-admins; the laissez-faire attitude of the community, editors and admins alike, toward violation of the WP:PILLARS in those areas of systemic bias such as religion in general and NRMs in particular. Add all that together and you have, well, you have what we have. And until admins start enforcing the WP:PILLARS as being the very foundation that wikipedia stands upon and not some "nicety"; until a few of them start taking visible stands, instead of standing back and watching; things will not improve. And why do I say admins need to enforce the WP:PILLARS, instead of saying "editors"? Because admins are looked to to set the tone here and if they do not set the tone then the tone will be set by human nature and general internet irresponsibility. Gulp.

    Tanaats 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for putting that here, Tanaats. I consider that some of my best work and would like to develop it into an essay. For now, I have it on my user page. You did forget one thing though. The beginning and the reason for the entire bit; to make it clear to BabyDweezil that "there is no cabal". Here is the beginning whole thing:

    There is no cabal and casting problems encountered in that light will not solve anything and will, in fact, worsen things. All there is are people; the normal interactions of people. Add to that the "natural" bias of people against anything that they do not understand, the "natual" tendency of people to make themselves right and others wrong if at all threatened; the fact that a group will generally defer to their lowest common denominator, the anonymity and concomitant lack of responsibility possible (note I say possible) in editors, especially non-admins; the laissez-faire attitude of the community, editors and admins alike, toward violation of the WP:PILLARS in those areas of systemic bias such as religion in general and NRMs in particular. Add all that together and you have, well, you have what we have. And until admins start enforcing the WP:PILLARS as being the very foundation that wikipedia stands upon and not some "nicety"; until a few of them start taking visible stands, instead of standing back and watching; things will not improve. And why do I say admins need to enforce the WP:PILLARS, instead of saying "editors"? Because admins are looked to to set the tone here and if they do not set the tone then the tone will be set by human nature and general internet irresponsibility. Gulp.

    Tanaats, I really have no idea why you are making this about me. But anyway . . . later --Justanother 22:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and Tanaats, your obvious effort to get me in bad with Bishonen, is telling of something and it ain't good faith. That bit had nothing to do with Bishonen or BabyDweezil's block, per se. It is about the general problem that I perceive and that I think BD does also and that I am sure others perceive too and what it would take, in my estimation, to handle it. Which "solution" I have not seen in the articles that I have been involved in. I was simply trying to get BD to drop the straw man of the cabal and I think I succeeded. --Justanother 23:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments

    I went through the diffs. There is no violation. What's listed as the first revert and the 4th revert are not reverts. And Smeelgova has clearly shown an effort to make peace. So. No block. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Well, all due respect but apparently you missed that I, in my inexperience at posting 3RR complaints, made a simple error. On the first revert, I failed to show how Smee reverted four of BD edits all in one swell foop. In the 4th Smee reverted BD and an anon at the same time. Don't know why you would say "What's listed as the first revert and the 4th revert are not reverts.|" So I guess next time I will show the reverts as I do below. Anyway, it was a righteous call on my part of five (5) reverts and to let Smee off without even a warning is bad mojo, IMO, because he did not give BD any room to settle down after coming off his block but instead went at his edits aggressively, IMO, in Cult apologist and Keith Henson (where he smashed up my valid edits in the process . . . repeatedly). I feel that his actions were disruptive and he needs to know that that feeling is not what he might perceive as a function of my POV. BD is a perceptive editor and I am sure that he will make necessary adjustments. I would like to see Smee do likewise. For now, Smee, by his own admission, thinks that he can revert away and that other editors should let him know when he has violated 3RR so he can self-revert and all will be well. That is all I have to say on the subject. Please see the diff below to validate my call. Thanks.
    --Justanother 13:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also 2007-02-09T22:31:19 Bishonen (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "BabyDweezil (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Aggravated 3RR on Cult apologist: 7 reverts in 17 hours, multiply warned, simultaneouly edit warring and 3RR gaming on Keith Henson, just back from edit war block, just back from previous edit war block.) William M. Connolley 10:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Yes, BD got in trouble but still Smee was over-aggressive, IMO, and clearly violated 3RR (not opinion, fact). Please see my comments above. --Justanother 13:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nirelan2 reported by User:Betsythedevine (Result:Indef block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Dave_Winer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nirelan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    Nirelan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is just the third and latest sockpuppet for Nirelan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is already banned for 3RR violations. For other (so far in vain) efforts to end his disruption of this article, see my RfC and User:Random832's report. But is there any way to stop him from ignoring blocks and creating more sockpuppets? betsythedevine 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ryulong blocked the sockpuppet. To answer your question, no there isn't a whole lot we can do to stop him outside of trying to determine when a new sockpuppet has been created. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BMT reported by User:TheEditor (Result:No violation)

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

    The rule is BEYOND three reverts in a 24 hour period. And please try to follow the suggested format if possible. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sample violation report to copy

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

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

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



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

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

    Note on completing a 3RR report:

    • Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
    • Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
    • We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
    • Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=107076543"