Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Matt57 (talk | contribs)
8,665 edits
Kirbytime (talk | contribs)
2,961 edits
Line 1,490: Line 1,490:
:The number of different excuses you've come up with over the past two days to justify your extensive edit-warring on three different pages should win you points for creativity, if nothing else. - [[User:Merzbow|Merzbow]] 05:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:The number of different excuses you've come up with over the past two days to justify your extensive edit-warring on three different pages should win you points for creativity, if nothing else. - [[User:Merzbow|Merzbow]] 05:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:Kirby, I just finding it amazing that admins have not blocked you indefinitely yet. Admins call you a troll, you've been blocked 2 times for trolling and requesting Child Porn, yesterday you got blocked for 3RR and today you did it again. Good going Kirby. I wonder if this editing behavior is going to be a regular occurence from you. --[[User:Matt57|Matt57]] <sup>([[User_talk:Matt57|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Matt57|contribs]])</sup> 05:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:Kirby, I just finding it amazing that admins have not blocked you indefinitely yet. Admins call you a troll, you've been blocked 2 times for trolling and requesting Child Porn, yesterday you got blocked for 3RR and today you did it again. Good going Kirby. I wonder if this editing behavior is going to be a regular occurence from you. --[[User:Matt57|Matt57]] <sup>([[User_talk:Matt57|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/Matt57|contribs]])</sup> 05:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not edit-warring on any pages. Despite your greatest efforts to prove the contrary, I have never once broke 3RR. But if someone feels the urge to block me, go ahead. Their need to feel good about themselves outweighs my potential missed contributions to Wikipedia.--[[User:Kirbytime|Kirby]]♥[[User talk:Kirbytime|time]] 05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


=== Example ===
=== Example ===

Revision as of 05:43, 8 May 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:Jagged 85 reported by User:Eiorgiomugini (Result: article protected)

    Battle of Talas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He is like making reverts without an agreenment was made on the talk pages, regardless Jagged 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had clearly violated and exceed the 3RR reveting. Eiorgiomugini 01:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Got confused with the date, I changed it. His first revert was indeed happneed on 1600 hrs 30 April, not 0000 hours 1 May, which was the second similiar reverting of chronologically order. Eiorgiomugini 05:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not convinced that's a revert. But it is an edit war from both sides. Article protected. ··coelacan 10:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether it was a revert war or not he still exceed the 3RR rules, so is it better for you to make a block. Eiorgiomugini 05:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    None of these above are not clear violation of 3RR rules, is all within a period of 24hrs, I don't see why he shouldn't be blocked for so, and should be let go. Eiorgiomugini 05:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocks are to be preventative, not punitive. Since the article is protected, there is no more need for prevention and thus there's no reason to block. Heimstern Läufer 06:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lanternix reported by User:Zerida (Result:31h)

    Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lanternix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]

    This is the second time I am reporting this user [2]. The previous report is still up. He also violated 3RR on another page no sooner than his block expired [3], [4], [5], [6]. Also, I believe he made this edit [7] thru an IP to avoid 3RR, so he actually made 5 reverts. — Zerida 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AnonMoos reported by [[User:24.218.222.86]] (Result: no violation)

    Rafida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AnonMoos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted 9 times from (21:10, 30 April) to (10:29, May 1)...and still continuing to war with user listed in the following report.

    24.218.222.86 10:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dreamz rosez reported by [[User:24.218.222.86]] (Result:Indef)

    Rafida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dreamz rosez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverted 10 times from (3:27, May 1) to (10:31, May 1)...and still continuing to war with user listed in the previous report.

    24.218.222.86 10:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:58.85.115.16 reported by User:Endroit (Result:12h)

    Takeshima, Shimane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 58.85.115.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    - * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion. Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    User:Chivista reported by User:anon (Result:24 hrs)

    Illegal immigration in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chivesta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported 14:46 EST:

    • [[8]] 17:35, 30 April 2007
    • [[9]] 12:11, 30 April 2007
    • [[10]] 18:26 1 May 2007
    • [[11]] 18:33 1 May 2007

    -198.97.67.56 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon, can you supply a link showing that the first edit above was a revert? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I see Kafziel's already blocked. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:156.110.204.66/User:Sdth reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:24 hours each for the IP and Sdth)

    Jeff Gannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 156.110.204.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Sdth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated insertion (almost daily for over a month) of POV material despite the universal opposition of all other editors and multiple warnings from those editors. User:Sdth is certainly the same user as User:156.110.204.66; regardless the IP address has violated the 3RR even if you do not count Sdth's edits.

    24 hours for the IP address. I'll block the account if you can show why you think it's the same person, though if it is, blocking the IP may block the account too. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does look as though it's him, and the IP belongs to a school so it may not catch the same person at this time of night, so I've blocked Sdth too. I daresay if it's not him he'll let us know soon enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:G-Dett reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 24 hrs)

    3RR violation on Pallywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by G-Dett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • 1st edit 23:18 May 1, adds the expression "pictures of hopelessness".
    • 1st revert 23:29 May 1, restores the expression "pictures of hopelessness."
    • 2nd revert 01:28 May 2, restores the expression "pictures of hopelessness."
    • 3rd revert 01:49 May 2, restores the expression "pictures of hopelessness."
    • 4th revert 02:28 May 2, restores the expression "pictures of hopelessness."
    Comments

    Four clear reverts in just over three hours to a version containing the expression "pictures of hopelessness," despite objections on talk. User has been warned about 3RR many times and blocked for it once. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked for 24 hrs. FeloniousMonk 02:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might this warrant another look? If you look at the 4th revert, G-Dett didn't actually replace the previous edit, which was a quote, but instead tried a paraphrased version that hadn't previously been used. This was also in keeping with Jayjg's suggestion in talk that a paraphrase was the more appropriate way to go about it.[12] There are further issues here, but as a matter of the spirit of 3RR and even a technicality, I'm not sure a newly created paraphrase that happens to include some text from the older direct quote is a revert. For what it's worth, G-Dett was also extensively using the talk page. Mackan79 04:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's as clear a 3RR violation as you could find. The suggestion on talk was that we paraphrase the author's position, which had already been done. G-Dett insisted instead on inserting the phrase "pictures of hopelessness," which has nothing to do with the author's argument, and did it five times in just over three hours, despite objections. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, you're noting the three words, but the fact is that those words were part of a larger paraphrase, which indeed was in keeping with Jay's suggestion, and a clear attempted compromise. Even speaking to the technical rule, though, I'm also not sure this is a clear violation. By rule, a revert can be as little as a single word, but if the word is in a different format (such as a different sentence), then it clearly isn't one. Here, your and Jay's objection was to the direct quote, with a suggestion that the material instead be paraphrased. I don't believe you said anything about that phrase. To then call the paraphrase a revert because it contained three of the same words doesn't seem reasonable. Considering you also reverted the page three times during the period with far less explanation, though, I'd think another look might be warranted. Mackan79 05:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm inclined to go with SV's position...4 reverts, not including the initial edit that included it, is intentionally disruptive, even if he's changing it up a little, the intent is still there. 3RR is not intended to keep out content, it is intended to prevent edit wars. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks for the response. Looking through it again, I saw that Jayjg's invitation was actually more explicit yet, though, as seen here.[13] "Again, the quotation doesn't seem to be about Pallywood at all, and its best not to invent quotations from foreign language sources, but instead paraphrase their contents. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)" This is, then, exactly what G-Dett did[14] I don't know if Slim had seen that; does that perhaps change the situation? Mackan79 08:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Mackan, you always do this when you or someone you agree with politically violates 3RR. Jay was saying the text was fine as it was. G-Dett kept restoring that phrase either with or without quotation marks, over objections, even though it had nothing to do with Pallywood, the subject of the article. S/he added it once and restored it four times in just over three hours, which is a 3RR violation. There's nothing complicated about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think if you can't see the problem here, you must be overly caught up in the situation. When Jayjg directly tells G-Dett that it's best to instead paraphrase the quote's contents, you can't report her for 3RR when she then does so. 3RR is about edit warring, not inviting someone to do something and then saying "gotcha" when they accept your compromise. The block is clearly a mistake; I hope this doesn't take a great deal further ado. Mackan79 09:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • He doesn't tell her to paraphrase; he says it has already been done, and he asks her to leave it. This is my last response, because this is what you always do, and it goes nowhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You are talking about a previous edit, not the most recent one in which he suggested it is what she should do with the particular quote.[15] As noted above, it was following the recent suggestion that she went ahead and did so, in very clear and modest fashion, and specifying why in her edit summary.[16] Considering your own edit warring on the page, I find it disappointing that you would be so insistent on this, as well as that you continue to make unwelcome and unjustified personal comments toward me, but I hope again that the clear mistake can simply be corrected. Mackan79 09:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Having come across User_talk:G-Dett#Blocked. This seems to me to be a borderline case, as to whether blocking is warranted. The last edit seems to have been an attempt at compromise then a deliberate revert. G-Man * 22:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Indeed. SV and Jayjg "ideological adversaries" have found themselves subject to these kinds of borderline blocks before, which is why Mackan79 has commented before. I know because I was the subject of one myself. Tiamut 10:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ImprobabilityDrive reported by User:EdJohnston (Result:no block)

    Creation-evolution controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ImprobabilityDrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • 1st revert: 01:22, 1 May, 2007 Actual words restored: CONTROVERSY ENSUED WITHIN HOURS (these exact words are restored in each of the five reverts)

    Diff of a Talk comment mentioning the 3RR rule (in passing) to User:ImprobabilityDrive, left by User:Guettarda: 13:38, 1 May 2007

    Formal 3RR warning left by User:Orangemarlin after the 5th revert: 21:22, 1 May, 2007

    This user's account was created on 20 April, 2007 but he arrived knowing many details of WP policy. in this edit on 22 April he inserted a 'fact' tag and an explanation next to it in hidden text. Several people have quizzed him in his Talk page as to whether he had a previous account, including User:JzG, but he always avoids answering the question. See User_talk:ImprobabilityDrive#Previous_account. EdJohnston 03:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • User appears to have stopped after the first clear warning about 3RR (Guettarda's comment doesn't really make it clear that 3 reverts is a rule), so no block for now. Update if user continues to edit war. Heimstern Läufer 03:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rebecca reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result:No action)

    Terry Lewis (police commissioner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rebecca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Continually restoring an unsourced article with large amount of negative information about a living person, despite me telling her this on her talk page and raising the matter on WP:ANI. One Night In Hackney303 04:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have explained on several occasions why Hackney's actions are unjustified by the policy he purports to cite. Despite several attempts to get him to address my reasons for reverting, he has not done so beyond "I am right and I will revert you until doomsday". In doing so, he has himself significantly overrun the 3RR rule. Perhaps I should have left the matter wait, but I am disinclined to leave a previously fine article in an abhorrent state because of someone dogmatically deciding to get their way regardless. Rebecca 04:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing content that violates WP:BLP is exempt from 3RR. One Night In Hackney303 04:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that, as I've repeatedly pointed out, this content didn't violate WP:BLP. Claiming that it does without justification does not give you a free pass for deciding to revert until doomsday. Incidentally, the material concerned is now sourced. Rebecca 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The content was an egregious WP:BLP violation. One Night In Hackney303 04:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As El C has pointed out on ANI, BLP is not generally meant to be applied in cases where the content was immediately verifiable. If you have anything further to say on this matter, I suggest you say it there. Rebecca 04:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I claim to follow the spirit of the policy, not its letter, and policy (yes, even BLP) needs to be fundamentally undogmatic; thus, I do not view your reverts as exempt. El_C 05:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ChazBeckett reported by User:Yukichigai (Result: 12 hrs)

    List of Heroes episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ChazBeckett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    While there may or may not be justification for the removal of fair use images, it is not a clear-cut policy matter at this point. (Especially due to the ongoing, yet-to-be-resolved discussion of the matter) In essence this is a content dispute based on differing interpretations of policy, which is in no way exempt from WP:3RR. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • As an admin, personally, I would likely never block someone for removing fair use images under 3RR...protecting Wikipedia from potential copyright issues is something that should never be punished. However, inserting them, is another story, for which I would block under disruption. I'm not as neutral on the subject as I'd like to be, however, my outside opinion is that no block should be issued. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem I have with that is that the WP:3RR policy doesn't make any exception for "protecting Wikipedia from potential copyright issues." Lots of things can be potential copyright issues. What is allowed is enforcing policy, and as I've said before, policy doesn't explicity allow or deny the inclusion of fair use images in lists. Until it does neither side can be said to be enforcing policy, but enforcing an interpretation of policy. That isn't allowed under 3RR by design, because if differing interpretations of policy were sufficient justification for unlimited reverting we'd have edit wars that dragged on for months. Now I'll admit I do fall in the "fair use images in some lists is okay" camp, but regardless of my opinion on that matter I realize at this point that it is an opinion, an interpretation of policy. I do not feel entitled to revert a page infinitely to preserve those images I deem okay, and I would expect to be banned for violating 3RR if I did so. The same should be true for editors on the other side of the argument. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 06:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not saying that id does make such an exception. However, inserting fair use pictures can clearly be seen as disruption in some instances: removing them is much more likely to be seen as good editing. As such, as an admin, I use my discretion, and I would not block under 3RR for someone who was removing fair use images that are repeatedly being inserted. Nobody is "entitled" to revert anything. I'm just saying, that while I lean towards saying "no block for removing RFU images", I'm not going to be the one in this case to close the report and say "OFFICIALLY" no block. I'm merely offering my opinion to whichever admin closes this. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) Also, while you correctly note that nobody is entitled to revert, editors should be expected to err on the side of protection against copyvio and in this case, that appears to be what was done. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Note: however, I did block anonnymouse (incorrect spelling) for using an anon IP to violate the 3RR: he was WELL aware of the rule having been blocked at least 3 times before it, and being warned at least twice for other violations of it. Further, his rationales show reversions based on a lack of understanding of policy (he claimed that administrators create consensus, among other things). See the page history for details. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR doesn't allow an exception for removing nonfree images (which are not forbidden by policy) - whether any given nonfree image is justified is a content dispute, which specifically is not exempted by 3RR. And nonfree images aren't a copyright issue, the justification for removal isn't copyright infringement, it's wikipedia's nonfree policy, which is more strict than US copyright law. This is a clear case of 3RR violation and should result in a block. --Minderbinder 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It does cover vandalism, which this very clearly is. -Mask? 14:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You say that, but I've yet to hear any justification for how adding images to an article is vandalism. These aren't unrelated images, they are screencaps from each of the episodes listed. There is no part of the Wikipedia policy on vandalism that the edits in question go against, and I challenge you to explicitly cite any part of the vandalism policy that says differently. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 20:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ridiculous. You should be ashamed of yourself for sinking to calling a content dispute "vandalism". --Minderbinder 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Non free images aren't a copyright issue?" Oh, well I guess we can get rid of that pesky little GFDL and copyright violation policy then. Fair use is a HUGE copyright issue....ever hear the Betamax case? It was a landmark supreme court case regarding....badum ching! Fair Use! ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no content 'dispute'. There is content not allowed to be posted that was readded. Copyvios are not disputes, they are required to be removed. -Mask? 00:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These are not copyright vios, these are a situation where wikipedia policy is more restrictive than copyright law. It's also a situation where what is allowed is open to interpretation. By the way, I removed the personal attack you made, please don't do it again. --Minderbinder 21:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Blocking for 12 hours. Whether or not the images were allowed to be there, they've been entrenched for a while and I count six reverts. Go for a page protect next time. This not exempt from 3RR, and is unacceptable. Majorly (hot!) 00:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Otto0612 reported by User:fcsuper (Result:attack account, blocked indefinitely)

    Sarah schlachter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Otto0612 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: *Page was speedy deleted due to being an attack, no history*

    *Page was speedy deleted due to being an attack, including a person's phone number, no history* Otto0612 added a females phone number to the Sarah schlachter article three times in rapid succession before the article was deleted. This is of great concern because Otto0612 was using wikipedia to victimize another person.

    I've blocked the account indefinitely. Those were its only edits. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kataimiko reported by User:JuJube (Result:No block)

    Sakura Haruno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kataimiko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not completely a clear-cut case, as the first revert was done by the user while she wasn't logged in, and thus I self-reverted the last time; however, common sense says that the anon and Kataimiko are clearly the same as their edits are the same. She is changing the Sakura Haruno biography to a horribly written fanfic-style gush full of speculative brouhaha. Note that her only previous edits to Wikipedia are to bash Maile Flanagan (the English dub VA of Naruto Uzumaki). JuJube 08:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you have a link that shows the first edit was a revert? It's not clear from the 22:50 May 1 link you provided. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bleh, the first edit has to be a revert, huh? Damn it, I just wasted people's time. I need to sleep when I say I'm sleeping. Sorry :/ JuJube 08:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Smatprt reported by User:Alabamaboy (Result:48hr)

    William Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Smatprt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: User:Smatprt was previously blocked on April 29 for a 3RR violation on this same article. Because I am a party to the editing of this article, I do not want to block Smatprt myself b/c of COI concerns. I'd appreciate if a third party could analyze the situation and see what action is needed.--Alabamaboy 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Threeafterthree reported by User:Blaxthos (Result:Article protected)

    Fox News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Threeafterthree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Third item on the list is not a revert. No violation here at the moment. Under some circumstances I would be willing to block without a breach of 4 reverts, but that doesn't seem like a productive action here. Looking at the talk page, I don't see a whole lot of consensus either way. So I am protecting the article to stop the edit war and you can all continue to discuss it on the talk page. Kafziel Talk 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Kafziel, I will try to cool it and use the talk page. Cheers!--Tom 18:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.54.18.57 reported by User:RWR8189 (Result:24h)

    Democratic Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.54.18.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, please note that this article has been placed on probation by a ruling from ArbCom.

    User:67.168.240.216 reported by User:EncMstr (Result: Article semi-protected)

    Lars Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.168.240.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (All times below in this entry are UTC-0700)

    Reversion dispute is over whether cited fact belongs in article. The IP has not responded to requests to discuss the addition or removal.

    I have no opinion on the discussed item, but it's quite obvious the anon editor is reverting just for the sake of being disruptive. -- tariqabjotu 00:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.7.200.183 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: Article protected)

    Noah's Ark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.7.200.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.16.121.195 reported by User:hmwith (Result:warned)

    Marty Meehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.16.121.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [20]

    Reversion dispute is over whether people who are running for congress should be mentioned in the biography of Marty Meehan, who currently is in congress.


    I don't see a 3rr warning? Komdori 03:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both the anon and User:Gang14 are involved in this edit war, and it looks to me like both are probably guilty of violating 3RR. As neither has been warned, I've warned both rather than making any blocks. Note to the person filing the report: please provide diffs rather than oldids next time. Heimstern Läufer 04:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Komdori (Result:)

    Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and associated infobox (which only appears on this page, having the effect of reverting this and only this page). Cydevil38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Complicated because of the interplay of the infobox and the article. I tried to group the changes to both together. I hope I didn't miss any, it was tough to get sorted out; even if a couple of the reverts don't count, there's still 3RR violation happening and he's clearly involved in a serious edit war with at least 3 or 4 other editors on the page. Note the link where he "compromised" still had the effect of removing the references he didn't like.

    and infobox here: [21]

    • Reverting to

    22:49, 30 April 2007 and infobox here: [22] (consistently replacing the new map with alternate images to remove it)

    I don't see alot of real reverts. Certainly not more than 3. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that while the word "Korean" is minor, it's being debated very heatedly and is indeed a "real revert"--I marked four easy ones to see, and as Endroit mentioned he's been blocked for 3RR before that with his other account. Komdori 13:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll let someone else handle it. Partial reverts are not my forte. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 13:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a very dishonest attempt to frame me of violating the 3RR. The 2nd and 3rd revert are in fact a single "revert" which consists of consecutive edits on what Komdori calls the "same page" in a time frame of 12 minutes with no interruptions by other editors in the contents under my editing.

    Initial edit at 22:03[23] Three consecutive edits from 22:03 to 22:08[24] Intermittent edit by another editor to non-related content at[25] Initial edit at 22:12 on Goguryeo infobox [26] One consecutive edit from 22:12 to 22:14[27] Two consecutive edits after the intermittent edit by another editor from 22:13 to 22:15[28]

    And the fourth "revert" was an edit to a content added by myself in the 2nd revert, so it was in fact a self-"revert". The edit where that passage was written:[29] The fourth "revert":[30]

    And this so-called "6th revert" is an exact duplicate of the "4th revert".

    The fourth "revert": [31] The "sixth revert": [32]

    And the "7th revert" has been made more than 20 hours after the last edit.

    So in sum, the only reverts that count are the 1st, 2nd and 5th. If there are any rules against abusing the system with intentionally fabricated/distorted evidence, such rules should apply to Komroi's attempt to frame me of 3RR violation. Cydevil38 04:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FactsFirst reported by User:Bobanny (Result: article protected)

    Kevin Potvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FactsFirst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve put in a request that this person be blocked for repeatedly making inappropriate edits to a biography of a living person as well, have explained on the article's talk page why these additions are inappropriate and have placed warning templates on FactsFirst's talk page. Thank you. bobanny 02:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The user was not given a 3RR warning, such as {{uw-3rr}}, so there can be no block. However, the edit warring does need to stop, so I have protected the page. Request unprotection at WP:RFPP when the discussion has moved forward. ··coelacan 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nunh-huh reported by User:smatprt (Result:no block)

    William Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nunh-huh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user and another has been tag team edit waring with me for the last week and this user himself has issued 3rrrv warnings. He is also harrassing me on my most recent edits that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I have atttempted talk with no results. I also informed him of his 3rr violation, yet edits continue. Smatprt 03:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just out of curiosity, Smatprt, it appears you reverted at least seven times in the same timeframe, or am I missing something? Komdori 03:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously you are aware of 3rr since you're filing a report here (and you yourself were blocked for doing the same thing to the same article just a few days ago). Cut it out, both of you. You know the drill; talk, etc. Komdori 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Itsnoteasybeingbrown reported by User:Abecedare (Result:12h)

    Mahatma Gandhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Itsnoteasybeingbrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated addition of information that violated WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and even miscites cited web-links.


    User:76.201.20.106 and possibly same person as User:Dr. Alberti reported by User:fcsuper (Result:)

    Telegraphica Oculta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 76.201.20.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [33]

    User:81.154.137.31 reported by User:Muchness (Result:12 hours)

    Eminem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.154.137.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Viriditas reported by User:Arcayne (Result:no vio)

    Children of Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [34]



    User:Viriditas is an experienced editor who is aware of 3RR. The user has been engaging in edit-warring, reverting content without citing references, pushing a POV not supported by citable references. Although this is not the place for it (except as a possible motivation for having violated 3RR), the editor has been uncivil, resorting to personal attacks and WP:POINT when others point out citable evidence that contradicts the edits. The article is suffering from it. Note that the 4th revert is an attempt to sidestep the same citable proof that was reverted before.

    Note: Numbers 3 and 4 are two consecutive edits, hence not technically a 3RR violation. But this is a long drawn out edit war over several days, with lots of tinkering over a trivial detail, where both parties seem to be equally at fault. I count at least 5 reverts in 3 days by Arcayne, and several edits more that are all designed to undo work by Variditas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, FutPerf is missing most of the picture here. Viriditas sought to include uncited (and then maintain) uncited information in the article. You failed to mention that during these edits, I was polite enough to not violate 3RR. Edits 3 and 4 are not consecutive edits, but are instead instended to sidestep 3RR by reverting cited information with - again - uncited information. A 3RR block is to protect the article; preventing uncited information from being continually and repeatedly introduced is a protective action. And not once was I impolite about the edits or removing the uncited edits; the same cannot be said by the violater named in the complaint. While the perception is that the edits are designed to undo work only by Viriditas, it should be said that Viriditas is currently the only person offering uncited data that needs reversion. Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Very well. I certianly hopes this bullet dodging serves as a wake-up call for the user.Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Biophys reported by User:Vlad fedorov (Result: 24 hrs)

    Operation Sarindar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [39]

    Previously was given just warnings two times:

    Eliminates sourced, reliable information from the article that doesn't suit to his political agenda. Vlad fedorov 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply. This is an example of alleged vandalism committed by User:Vlad fedorov on a regular basis. So, I only tried to correct this alleged vandalism. Please see Talk:Operation_Sarindar#I_think_that_is_vandalism. I reported about this problem twice to different administrators and warned Vlad fedorov twice on his talk page (but he deleted my notes). Please also note that Vlad Fedorov has been reported on this notice board by Piotrus just a few days ago about his RR violations. See [40] No actions with regard to him was taken. He continued RR warring even after this notice. Biophys 16:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Please see how he previously deleted referenced sources in articles Nikolai Koltsov, Persecution of political bloggers, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews and others, and his more recent disruptive editing of article Institute of National Remembrance. He was also reported for alleged wikistalking of me and others by User:Colchicum. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov.Biophys 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have additionaly reported your personal attacks here and here. Vlad fedorov 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As for your allegations of disruptive edits and so on and comments on me, I believe they belong to other noticeboard. And, perhaps, it would be worthy to read RfC on you Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biophys in order to see your disruptive editing and violations. Vlad fedorov 16:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    23 minutes? Sigh. Considering Vlad got away recently from a much more serious 3RR violation I suggest using the same approach here and protecting the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It wasn't violation as Irpen had explained to you. And here is the speech about user Biophys who has violated 3RR thrice in a period of no more than two weeks. Vlad fedorov 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ALM scientist reported by User:HighInBC (Result:no vio)

    User talk:ALM scientist/Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies (edit | [[Talk:User talk:ALM scientist/Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ALM scientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I decided not to block this user myself as I am directly involved. While WP:3RR does say that "Normally, reverting by a user within their own user space" is exempt, in this case the user is attempting to portray a dispute out of context in an essay like fashion. I personally feel that not even allowing discussion on the talk page about this expository piece of work is contrary to WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:OWN and the spirit of WP:3RR. I ask that an uninvolved admin look at this. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted at my user-space HighInBC after keep telling him not to add material there. I asked [41] from User:William M. Connolley before reverting him last time. He said that "Repeatedly posting to someone elses talk page when asked not to is impolite. You cannot really violate 3RR on your user space William M. Connolley 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)" and then I reverted him again. I at least have not violated any policy intentionally and even confirmed from a person who is most active 3RR maintainer before reverting HighInBC. Rest is on you, to block me or not. --- A. L. M. 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree you may have gotten some bad advice leading to the final revert. WP:3RR is a bit ambiguous about the issue of userspace. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When I create any article on main space then many people say first create on your user space and then on main space. Now I am trying to work under my user space and still WP:NOT#SOAP does not leave me alone. Let me first please complete it without interruption (like created by HighInBC) and rewrite it. It will be changed a lot and will be a well-written/balanced article. --- A. L. M. 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion is that this shouldn't be 3RR; and if the page is too offensive to be allowed to live then it should go through AFD William M. Connolley 19:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. Heimstern Läufer 21:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Listed at WP:3rr as an excecption: Normally, reverting by a user within their own user space. GDonato (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ALM has taken to removing most warnings from his talk page, for example this memorable one (count the diffs) among many others.[42]. The most likely purpose of this is to ensure that other administrators reacting to the very same mode of disruption across multiple articles are unaware that he has already been requested to stop. For example, this recent warning from Elonka is a standard template, as if this advice to refrain from edit-warring werent something with which he was already more than adequately acquainted. ALM removed it, then restored it, perhaps when he realized that Elonka is an administrator.[43]Proabivouac 23:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed everything from my talk page. That is my right. You stop assuming things about me. --- A. L. M. 08:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There has never been a 3RR violation on personal userpages, as far as I know(well at least in the last year). --Aminz 08:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this may be an issue for ANI if it keeps up. But as 3RR is now, it is unlikely to be a 3RR issue. I think that whole section on the userpages being exempt needs some qualifiers, perhaps I will propose a change soon. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Методије reported by User:85.158.35.24 (Result:)

    7th Muslim Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Методије (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [49] by Nikola Smolenski who was asked by this user to help him.

    I would like to say that this user doesn't want to cooperate. He keeps pushing unreliable sources per WP:RS, and replacing previous version of the article. I think this user is radical Serb and insults all other users in Bosnia related articles (I think his behaviour is in the light of previous war between Serbia and Bosnia and genocide commited by Serbs in Srebrenica). He insults Bosniaks the same way Serb war criminals did before. Here are some insults and other examples: now some other idiot has hooked into me, my toilet paper is better source, because I don't care about tuzla having a good, rigorously sourced article, I tried for protection, but administrator seems to think we should discuss with this vandalistic idiot. Examples about anti Bosnian sentiment: Removal of some sentences related to Anti-Bosniak sentiment etc.

    I ask you to stop this radical Serb, because many victims of Serb terror are horrified watching his horsing in this encyclopedia. Unlike him, some users are insisting on reliable sources (courte decisions, courte reports) not war propaganda already seen during the war. Thank you and God bless you.

    I didn't look into the actual content of the reverts, but a few things--please provide the diff times (I looked, it appears they happened over the course of several days, and wouldn't qualify for a 3rr violation). I also didn't see a 3rr warning on his page (although I just glanced--there is no link to one here in any case). Including this information will speed things along. Komdori 19:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also added two earlier edits (30th April and 1st May) and the rest are (3rd May) in order to show the continuous pattern.

    User:Boggienights reported by User:EncMstr (Result:24h)

    Lars Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boggienights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (All times below in this entry are UTC-0700)

    The reversion pattern is the same as reported above (resulting in article semi-protection) and is probably the same user. The talk page has a clear appeal for discussing the issue, but the serial reverter has ignored every such attempt.

    • Blocked for 24 hours. It seems clear this is the same user as the anon from before, or else influenced by that editor, so I am in this case not concerned that the 3RR warning came after the last revert. Heimstern Läufer 03:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Time travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TassadarAlpha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 01:00
    • Diff of 3RR warning: 22:18

    User is using IP 76.27.144.141 as well as the main account. All recent edits focus on putting in various inaccurate, uncited, statements about special and general relativity. Similar pattern is developing at Tachyon, currently at 3 reverts. Michaelbusch 01:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24 hours. Kafziel Talk 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cfvh reported by User:Maniwar (Result:no vio)

    Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cfvh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion is taking place and has been taking place on the talk page of what to name rename the article to because, currently the case is not factual. I've pointed out to the user:Cfvh to discuss at the talk page and not revert or he would be reported, however user continues to ignore, and revert without discussing or waiting for discussion to run its course. When user was informed not to start edit war he said: 

     Feel free to report me, I feel that I have sufficiently supported why my position is correct. If 
 you are trying to discuss what it "should" be called, don't go on changing the intro line. My 
 edits reflect fact and those will stay fact unless it is given a name along the lines of a 
 definite case title[50]

    User:Cfvh has joined the discussion late and reverted what was already there. This is clearly a violation of the 3RR policy. --Maniwar (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He still hasn't. He has reverted three times in the last 24 hours. And to be quite honest, you're both guilty of edit warring; he wouldn't be able to revert you over and over if you weren't reverting him over and over. If you don't like his version and he refuses to discuss it, there are ways to deal with that without reverting. Remember: this is not an emergency. Leave his version and seek dispute resolution. Kafziel Talk 13:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be the first to admit that I was edit warring, however, I still say that this user was guilty of breaking the 3RR on the forth and he was able to get away with it. This user is preventing anyone from making changes and the user continues to revert anyone who wants to make the article accurate. I agree with Kafziel that it's not an emergency, but I then ask what would you all do in a scenario like this? What would you have done if the user refuses to discuss? The rest of us are trying to discuss and improve, yet one user will not allow it. If you want to respond at my talk page I would appreciate it. But then, I still say that I did the right thing in asking you to look at Cfvh, and see that there was, perhaps after Kafziel's post, but there was a violation to the 3RR. thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note, I have not broken the 3RR and I have spoken on the talk page for the article in question. My edits to the name reflected fact and were in good faith and not biased (in response to insinuations elsewhere) and I ask all those interested in noting my comments as to the scope of the article in relation to the name of the article itself. My edits are not malicious and I never intent to break or circumvent rules or conventions in practice or "in spirit". I find it extraordinary for a user to ask me to settle for something that he or she is otherwise doing him- or herself. As I said, again for clarity and so I am not accused of supporting my edits, I changed the name of the article to reflect fact and to reflect the growth of the content of the article beyond any given case name (none has been given as an article name, by the way). Charles 22:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Voice of Britain reported by User:Will Beback (Result:18h)

    Child sexual abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Voice of Britain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There are also many other reverts by the same editor on the same and other articles today. (Pardon the scure links). -Will Beback · † · 05:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:84.148.123.214 reported by User:Adam McMaster (Result:24h)

    Bob Dylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.148.123.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Keeps splitting lead section into a separate "Background" section, despite several editors agreeing that this is unnecessary.

    User:Mega_Man_5 reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: Blocked concurrently)

    Ratatouille (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mega_Man_5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mega_Man_5 refuses to discuss image edit war on page, insists on only his version. Dismissed compromise version put forth by SpikeJones. When warned of 3RR, immediately logged out and reverted again from IP address.

    3RR here is disputed, but the user is blocked anyway for the below report. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Mega_Man_5 reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result:24 hours)

    Wii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mega_Man_5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been blocked for 24 hours. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DPeterson reported by User:Voice of Britain (Result:No violation)

    Child sexual abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Reverts:

    [51] [52] [53]

    This does not seem to be a violation of the 3RR policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Italiavivi reported by User:Cogswobble (Result:24)

    Fox News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Italiavivi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [54] - Intro


    • 1st revert: [55] - Reverted the intro
    • 2nd revert: [56] - Reverted the intro
    • 3rd revert: [57] - Reverted the intro


    • Previous version reverted to: [58] - Image
    • 4th revert: [59] - Reverted an image


    • Previous version reverted to: [60]
    • 5th revert: [61]


    • Previous version reverted to: [62]
    • 6th revert: [63]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [64]
    • I am not considering reverts 4 and 5 because number four is immediately consectuive with number three, while five is the removal of an image with no fair use rationale. But 1, 2, 3 and 6 are legitimate reverts. Note also that there is no exception to 3RR because your version has consensus. If it truly has consensus, you won't need to be the one to make all the reverts and thus violate 3RR. Blocked for 24 hours. Others who are uninvolved: review as necessary. Heimstern Läufer 17:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Voice_of_Britain reported by User:JohnsonRon (Result: 30 hours)

    Child sexual abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Voice of Britain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [65] This is a version he continues to edit/delete, revert from: [[66]]


    Note: His talk page shows a history of this problem on this article: [71] [72] -- evidence of previous block.

    • I am having a hard time working through this as the report is not formatted correctly. Do I understand from your "previous version reverted to" (which should be a version, not a 'diff') that it is the removal of the paragraph which begins "This could explain ..."? Sam Blacketer 20:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I understand the 3RR rule correctly, the reverts do not all have to be of the same material. This user has reverted edits to the article more than three times in the last 24 hours.
      • 04:12, May 4, 2007 Version being reverted to, in parts
      • 1st 10:23, May 5, 2007 "unclear issues lifted out to discussion page, please discuss before doing anything"
      • 2nd 12:50, May 5, 2007 Revert to this [73]
      • 3rd 20:26, May 5, 2007 "(rv very strange edits, you do not seem to know what you are doing. Please read the research before making edits as these.)"
      • 4th 20:45, May 5, 2007 "(rv vandalism)" (edit was not vandalism)
      • There are others as well, but since these are partial reverts of various material they are complicated to track. -Will Beback · † · 21:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Looks like a violation to me, I am giving a 3RR block. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have come to the same conclusion, as each given edit has the effect of removing material added by another editor; i.e., reverting edits. Heimstern Läufer 21:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HeadMouse reported by User:Kralizec! (Result:self-reverted)

    Monorail System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HeadMouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that the editor in question has also received two WP:OWN warnings (13:39, 5 May 2007, 16:01, 5 May 2007) for the only article that links to this redirect. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Meowy reported by User:Corticopia (Result:24 hours)

    Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Meowy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Continues to alter table of European constituents to inequitably include peripheral territories (e.g., Armenia), despite long-standing consensus regarding the table and discussion. The above versions may slightly vary, but that is the intent of this contributor's edits, garnered without and consensus. Corticopia 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Heimstern Läufer 22:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Take a glance at the article history and talk page for more information. Corticopia 22:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not seeing how the first revert listed is a revert, especially since the given "version reverted" to is the same version as that revert. Heimstern Läufer 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Argh: can you please peruse the article history? Actually five edits were made today, but I'm unsure how to report. This and anon edits like this give pause. In any event, these edits were made in spite of the status quo -- in place for months -- and without any discussion or consensus, so whatever this first editor's edit was regarding this is a revert to a nonconsensual version. Corticopia 23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're asking me to go hunt through the history of an article I don't edit and where I'm not familiar with the disputes and figure out if your report is accurate. That's too much to ask; consider the amount of time that could take. The burden of proof is on the user making the report, not on the admin processing the report. Heimstern Läufer 23:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm asking you to even peruse the most recent edit history, not all of it. Is that so difficult? For god's sake, if you can't or won't exercise due diligence while invoking unfamiliarity with topic matter, I suggest you permit another admin the privilege of processing this report. Corticopia 23:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have in fact perused the recent history and found nothing. Any other admin is free to look at this at any point to process it. Please keep your tone of voice civil. I have only asked you to follow the instructions given on this page, which include giving a version reverted to. Heimstern Läufer 00:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, explain that to the admin which exercised more diligence and has already blocked this editor. I only asked you do to your job as an admin ... so for that (in this instance) I cannot say anything more. Corticopia 00:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Corticopia, I've restrained myself for now. That last comment put it over. It is most emphatically not my job to do your homework. Cut it out. You're being patronizing to someone who only asked you to do what is expected of any user: to follow the basic instructions given. Heimstern Läufer 00:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Get off the soapbox. It is your bloody job to act on reports or not to with diligence. I, as much a volunteer as you, provided information as best as possible; you replied and I responded, and then was dealt with haphazardly. I can only imagine if an editor that was more a novice decided to report something here with such a response. I would've been more content in having you unequivocally reject the report, instead of wasting my and your time by not dealing with it by passing the buck back. In any event, it has been dealt with by someone else. If you are either unwilling or unable to navigate the inequities of 3RR, leave it for someone else. And on that note, I'm concluding this thread. Corticopia 01:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Corticopia, although I have blocked the user for 24 hours, I strongly suggest you leave the article as it is; one more revert will violate 3RR for you as well. Kafziel Talk 00:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Purgatory Fubar reported by 82.2.95.111 22:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC) (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Purgatory Fubar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 1932 5 May (and variations thereof - moving same large block of text backwards repeatedly)

    User:TyrusThomas4lyf reported by User:Aaron Bowen (Result:24 hours)

    Michael Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyrus was blocked yesterday for 3RR on this page and has come right back and edit warred again.

    • 1st revert: [74]
    • 2nd revert: [75]
    • 3rd revert: [76]
    • 4th revert: [77]
    • 5th revert: [78]
    • 6th revert: [79]
    • 7th revert: [80] This also contains a personal attack.
    Blocked for 24 hours. Kafziel Talk 00:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:K1ng l0v3 reported by User:asams10 (Result:31 hours)

    Ruger Mini-14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). K1ng l0v3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [81]

    User:Gatorgalen reported by User:ClaudeReigns (Result:no vio)

    Larry Pile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gatorgalen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [82]

    Short reply: I have been wrongly accused. The first alleged "revert" was a simple edit after reviewing a new (to me) article. The second and third are reverts of reverts - the policy is very clear that that website is not acceptable here; Claudereigns, please discuss things on talk page in the future - administrator if you can please come mediate. Thank you. Gatorgalen 02:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Only three reverts are listed here; need more than three for 3RR vio. Heimstern Läufer 03:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your honesty and quick diligent attention in this matter. Point of information, if one looks at them it's actually only two reverts, following one edit. At least I don't understand how one can consider the first a revert. Doesn't matter. Thanks.

    User:Gon4z reported by User:MrMacMan (Result:24h)

    Albanian Land Forces Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gon4z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [83]
    Blocked for 24 hours. Prodego talk 02:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Furthermore user is also in an edit war on Template:Infobox National Military Albania

    Already blocked... Prodego talk 03:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Orangemonster2k1 reported by User:Thewinchester (Result:no vio)

    Stoopid Monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Orangemonster2k1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Calton reported by User:Thewinchester (Result:no vio)

    Stoopid Monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Limboot reported by User:Karl Meier (Result: 1 month)

    Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Limboot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1 month block this time, returned right to the edit war after the end of the previous block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Calton reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Page protected)

    Stoopid Monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I know that this isn't technically a violation of the 3RR since the fourth revert occurred 24 hours and 14 minutes after the first. However, it's clearly edit-warring. Further, in addition to copious amounts of uncivility, the editor's edit summaries imply (a) clear knowledge of the 3RR and (b) intent to edit war.

    Page has been protected by Majorly due to edit-warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And this editor knowingly engaged in edit warring and blatant incivility...? --ElKevbo 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If the article hadn't been protected, a block might serve a preventative purpose in stopping the edit warring. Being protected, there can hardly be any more edit warring right now. A block would simply be to punish, and we don't use them for that reason. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    85.140.243.132 reported by User:Staberinde (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)

    Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.140.243.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User 85.140.243.132 was warned between 4th and 5th revert[84]. Note, seems that he has changed IP and continues edit warring [85].

    User 85.140.209.13 seems to be same editor as 85.140.243.132, continues reverting text without discussion.80.235.55.122 16:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:203.94.192.142 reported by User:John254 (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)

    Political history of medieval Karnataka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 203.94.192.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: complex partial reversions
    • Diff of 3RR warning: Given the disruptive nature of this user's editing, he was warned for vandalism, not a 3RR violation [86][87][88]. He should hardly be rewarded for such disruption by avoiding being blocked for a 3RR violation merely because he was not specifically warned about the 3RR.

    John254 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nat Krause reported by User:Ksyrie (Result: no block)

    South Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nat Krause (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [89]
    Revert without any reasonalbe explanation,even though I had repeatedly talked to him ro her what the last version before his or her reversion was well referenced.S/he seems too persistent to her or his version or view in spite of the neutrality of wikipedia.--Ksyrie 20:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done — ignoring discounted diffs, there are only two reverts; this is insufficient for a block on WP:3RR grounds ~ Anthony 00:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kirbytime reported by User:Merzbow (Result:24h)

    Criticism of the Qur'an (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kirbytime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    All reverts comment out the picture in dispute. Can't find a prior 3RR warning but he's been an active editor for over a year and is an experience ANI poster (see block log) so I find it hard to believe he's unaware. - Merzbow 02:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    "Reverting clear copyright violations or clearly libelous material". It is a clear copyright violation to use that image anywhere except on the article on that film.--Kirby♥time 02:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to make the case clear: The dispute is over the inclusion of this image. It is taken from a film that portrays an abused woman in a see-through chador, her naked body painted with verses from the Koran. You can check out the video here [90]. The subtitle of the image is as follows: "Image of a woman's body with Quranic verses written on it from the film Submission. The actress plays the role of a Muslim woman (dressed with a transparent black clothing) as having been beaten and raped by a relative. The bodies are used in the film as a canvas for verses from the Qur'an" --Aminz 02:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the picture and replaced it with an example to avoid copyvio, as I am 100% certain that image is not fair use on this page.--Kirby♥time 02:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Image in question: Image:Submission screenshot.gif--Kirby♥time 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a clear copyright violation because you have several other users on talk telling you it isn't. So you've broken 3RR. - Merzbow 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I broke 3RR on the good faith assumption that I was preventing a copyvio. I asked the user who added it to the article User:Matt57, to justify how the picture is fair use in the article. He has not responded. And I thought that even possible copyvios are kept out of an article until the issue is resolved. I apologize if I have done any wrongdoing.--Kirby♥time 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kirby, "I have not responded" is not true at all. How about just one response here? See the whole history of how I have discussed this issue. An apology is not going to work. You violated 3RR. This will be your 3rd block now.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Banu Qurayza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kirbytime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    His unabated edit-warring on multiple articles continues. All reverts change some instance of the word "massacre" to something else. - Merzbow 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The second one, i reverted to Provoubiac's version.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qurayza&oldid=128549674 here]. That one doesn't count because I was reverting a mistake that another editor made. He says he reverted to massacre but it is clear that he reverted to punishment (my version). I took the initiative and reverted him to reflect what appeared to be consensus, "killing".--Kirby♥time 02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK technically that one doesn't remove "massacre" but your intentions to prosecute the edit war are clear in its edit summary: "2. Please read def of "massacre [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?hl=en&q=massacre&btnG=Look+up here". - Merzbow 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kirbytime is consistently edit warring and showing a complete unwillingess to discuss with others. I am less than convinced of the fair-use rationale in the above report, nor am I convinced there are really four reverts here; however, his revert warring is proving extremely disruptive. Therefore, I have chosen to block for 24 hours. I mean this as a preventative measure to avoid further disruption. Other admins: review as necessary. Heimstern Läufer 02:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VanBrigglePottery reported by User:DCGeist (Result:Both users blocked, 20 hours)

    McCarthyism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VanBrigglePottery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [91]
    • 1st revert: [92]
    • 2nd revert: [93]
    • 3rd revert: [94]

    Earlier revert within same 9-hour period as part of same edit war:

    • Previous version reverted to: [95]
    • 1st revert: [96]

    —DCGeist 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree that DCGeist had violated 3RR. I only see two clear reverts,[97][98] and recommend that he be unblocked. Please see User talk:DCGeist for details. --Elonka 08:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hoponpop69 Reprted by User:Pbroks13 (result: no block)

    Anberlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Duece22 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24 hours)

    Dirk Nowitzki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Duece22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    These edits also present significant WP:BLP concerns.

    {{notdone} User was not warned. I will place a {{3RR}} warning in talk. If he persist, please re-list here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)  Done Blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.118.193.124 reported by User:Alansohn (Result:) 24 hrs

    American Airlines Flight 587 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.118.193.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Four separate reversions to same version, despite warning on user talk page. No explanations were provided in teh edit summary for any of these reverts.

     Done 24 hours. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dr_Zak reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result: 24 hrs)

    [[::Image:DerSturmer stand.jpg]] (edit | [[Talk::Image:DerSturmer stand.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dr_Zak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Done 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarenne reported by User:Fnagaton (Result: 24 hrs)

    User talk:Fnagaton (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Fnagaton|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sarenne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been repeatedly asking questions on my talk page that have already been answered in other talk pages. Despite warnings not to do that the user continues to disrupt my talk page.


     Done 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.3.64.139 reported by User:172.190.43.228 (Result:)

    ANI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 82.3.64.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure how to do this but User:Purgatory Fubar was blocked for the same thing It is my opinion that both should be blocked if one is to be blocked. 172.190.43.228 00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    User:Gerash77 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24hrs)

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gerash77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Editor is gaming with multiple complex reverts. In the first two reverts he returns the phrase so-called "[[Iranian reformists|reformists]]" to the intro, which he had introduced with this edit. In his third revert, he returned the "POV-intro" tag to the article, which has just been removed with this edit. The last revert is just a simple revert, to his previous version. He's been editing Wikipedia for a long time, since July, 2006, so he should know better. Jayjg (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JohnPaulus reported by User:jmh123 (Result:no block due to possible BLP concerns)

    John Paulus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JohnPaulus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    3RR warning issued: 19:54 7 May 2007


    Editor is a new editor, claiming to be the individual about whom the entry is written, although requests to validate that identity through a post in that individual's blog have been ignored. (ETA: Validation now provided.) Editor refuses to discuss the edits on "talk," other than to demand that the entry be written as he deems it should be written. Reverts are accomplished by deleting the disputed material, rather than via revert. As the editor is editing an article presumably about himself, with all the issues that entails, a look at the last few sections on the talk page of the entry John Paulus and the nature of the edits by User:JohnPaulus will probably be helpful. -Jmh123 00:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure whether this is the appropriate place to report this, but User:JohnPaulus is now threatening to send his "followers" to enforce his will on the content on another entry. See User_talk:JohnPaulus here: "I will encourage such actions on my blog...." -Jmh123 02:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'm an involved editor but I recommend that we don't block for 3RR. This (new) user has not reverted after he acknowledged reading the 3RR warning. There ather other issues that may eclipse this, including BLP and possibly NLT. Heimstern Läufer is correct that ANI is the best forum for this matter at the moment. -Will Beback · † · 05:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Julien Deveraux reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat (Result:)

    Brent Corrigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Julien Deveraux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: Not a new user. Has been involved in edit wars on this page before, including getting it protected a while back. 3RR warnings to everyone have been on the talk page up to a few months ago.
    • Note: Please note each edit re-inserts the 5'1" height. I'm not normally a fan of reporting 3RR but the user is refusing to cite sources on the major issues, and this business of editing the height and weight was specifically done to be a WP:POINT disruption, as he admits, "The dispute about his height/weight is petty, I agree, but its an argument being used based on the same logic for the reverts..."

    User:Kirbytime reported by User:Merzbow (Result:)

    Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kirbytime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He's at it again, edit-warring less than a day after returning from his previous 3RR block. - Merzbow 05:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The first edit is wholly unrelated to the other three. And I wasn't blocked for 3RR last time, ask the blocking admin.--Kirby♥time 05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Kirbytime is also indulging in gross violations of NPA and CIVIL (Gives a Wiki link to Piss Christ,[99]) and many other disruptive edits tonight. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I slashed that out. And if you seriously have an issue, file a RfC. This is for 3RR.--Kirby♥time 05:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if the first edit is unrelated: "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." (WP:3RR) And you were blocked for extensive edit-warring on two pages, one of which was a clear 3RR violation. - Merzbow 05:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you seriously suggesting that my revert of poorly written original research is going to be counted?--Kirby♥time 05:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR doesnt care if its OR or not. A revert is a revert. There's a reason they have this policy.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If that is the case, I ask to be blocked. I accept being blocked as punishment for removing original research from Wikipedia. This is a gross misuse of 3RR policy.--Kirby♥time 05:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The number of different excuses you've come up with over the past two days to justify your extensive edit-warring on three different pages should win you points for creativity, if nothing else. - Merzbow 05:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kirby, I just finding it amazing that admins have not blocked you indefinitely yet. Admins call you a troll, you've been blocked 2 times for trolling and requesting Child Porn, yesterday you got blocked for 3RR and today you did it again. Good going Kirby. I wonder if this editing behavior is going to be a regular occurence from you. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not edit-warring on any pages. Despite your greatest efforts to prove the contrary, I have never once broke 3RR. But if someone feels the urge to block me, go ahead. Their need to feel good about themselves outweighs my potential missed contributions to Wikipedia.--Kirby♥time 05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

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

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

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]

<!-- 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 and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

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

<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=129166351"