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
Qaka (talk | contribs)
379 edits
Line 1,329: Line 1,329:


:User has been warned by an admin about violating 3RR before (see: [[User talk:Jmfangio/1#3RR]], though clearly fails to understand how it works as he still denied he had. Further evidence that he does not understand 3RR is that he has twice reported me for it, including once today, yet both times I had not as indication by the history of the articles.►'''[[User:Chrisjnelson|<span style="color: #005e6a">Chris </span><span style="color: #005e6a">Nelson</span>]]''' 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
:User has been warned by an admin about violating 3RR before (see: [[User talk:Jmfangio/1#3RR]], though clearly fails to understand how it works as he still denied he had. Further evidence that he does not understand 3RR is that he has twice reported me for it, including once today, yet both times I had not as indication by the history of the articles.►'''[[User:Chrisjnelson|<span style="color: #005e6a">Chris </span><span style="color: #005e6a">Nelson</span>]]''' 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
===[[User:SchmuckyTheCat]] reported by [[User:Qaka]] (Result:)===
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|Image talk:Dependent territories 2007.png}}. {{3RRV|SchmuckyTheCat}}: Time reported: 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


*Previous version reverted to: None (He keeps blanking the new page and subsitutes with a speedy tag)

<!-- 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:Dependent_territories_2007.png&oldid=149596848 19:07, 6 August 2007 ]
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:Dependent_territories_2007.png&diff=149597400&oldid=149596848 19:10, 6 August 2007 ]
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:Dependent_territories_2007.png&diff=149607086&oldid=149596848 19:58, 6 August 2007]
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:Dependent_territories_2007.png&diff=149612870&oldid=149596848 20:27, 6 August 2007 ]
*5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:Dependent_territories_2007.png&diff=149618459&oldid=149596848 20:55, 6 August 2007]
== Example ==
== Example ==


Revision as of 21:07, 6 August 2007


Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.

    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:68.149.47.144 reported by User:sdfisher (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)

    Corner Gas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.149.47.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1st revert: [1]
    • 2nd revert: [2]
    • 3rd revert: [3]
    • 4th revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • 5th revert: [6]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [7]

    This is an ongoing thing, but the reverts I listed are within the last 24 hours. (Apologies if I did something wrong; this is my first time reporting one of these.) Steven Fisher 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you did great; the only thing outstanding is that you're meant to give the time each of the links above occurred, by adding [space]00:00 01 January 2007 to the end (replacing [space] with a space, obviously. Not that it matters - most Administrators will double check the times anyway; so, IP Blocked – 10 hours, for a WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny 18:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:66.131.139.158 reported by User:Gzuckier (Result:Already blocked)

    David Irving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.131.139.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The anon user is already blocked. Tom Harrison Talk 20:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jayjg reported by User:Lothar of the Hill People (Result:No violation; page protected)

    Social apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure how to do this but if you look at the history of social apartheid you'll see that Jayjg reverted at 17:42, 30 July 2007, 19:21, 30 July 2007, 20:45, 30 July 2007 and 20:55, 30 July 2007 Jayjg.

    The first one was not a revert, and the page has been protected now by Y. In fact, it was protected before you made your report. ElinorD (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry for my mistake. Can I withdraw the complaint? -- LOTHAR

    User:68.167.65.63 reported by User:Emerson7 (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)

    Gene Tierney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.167.65.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    i, too, may be in violation, because i didn't realise this has been going on since yesterday when i made the changes today.

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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [13]

    User:GothicEnthusiast reported by User:Oli Filth (Result:Blocked, 14 hours)

    Gothic chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GothicEnthusiast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Continual unexplained/unjustified removal of section tags (that I added to promote discussion of the section's contents).

    User:Jedimetroid reported by User:Bobblehead (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)

    IPhone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jedimetroid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This was actually his second 3RR block --teb728 08:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies - I generally look for the words "3-Revert Rule violation" in block logs; instead, the Administrator who previously blocked for (amongst other things) a 3RR violation used slightly different wording, and I missed it :\ thanks for the note, and I'd like to make you aware that the block has already been raised by another Administrator, for multiple account misuse ~ Anthøny 12:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Peter Isotalo reported by User:Freakofnurture (Result:Page protected)

    Smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Peter Isotalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Tim Osman reported by user NYScholar (result: 48 hours)

    Tim Osman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [For previous history, see User talk:Tim Osman#Blocked. --NYScholar 05:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)][reply]

      • Example of same or similar reverts (deletions of my comments) to Talk:Joseph C. Wilson: [14]; click on "older edit" and "newer edit" for the rest of them. There are over four reverts there of my comments on that talk page. I have since restored what I could recover of them. (It has been very time-consuming.) His deletions of my comments violate both WP:3RR and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.
      • Example of same or similar reverts in my talk page at User talk:NYScholar: See editing history for comment by administrator: [15]; click on "older edit" and "newer edit" for rest of them. There are over four reverts there of my talk page.
    This user (who does not have a user page but only a user talk page, which I have linked to) has been both deleting legitimate comments that I posted from Talk:Joseph C. Wilson and deleting my work from the article itself without prior explanation on the article's talk page. After I posted warnings about the damage to the article and the damage to the integrity of its citations formatting and to the integrity of Wikipedia, he began deleting my comments from the article talk page [multiple times] and then posted personal attacks on me (in the guise of "No personal attacks" notices) multiple times on my own talk page; each time that I deleted them, posting a "NPA" template, he deleted that and re-posted his own claims in bold print, engaging in multiple reverts of my user talk page.
    He claims in various places (Talk:Joseph C. Wilson, the talk pages of various administrators, and my own talk page [which I deleted]) that I have "vandalized" the Wilson article, which I have clearly not done. He has been blocked first for 48 hours for violating WP:3RR and then again for a week (which just expired) for violating WP:3RR (see link above). He has reverted my deletions of his offensive postings on my talk page multiple times and he has edited and/or deleted my comments from the talk page of the article on Wilson multiple times:
    I was blocked for 48 hours twice for my attempts to delete what I [legitimately, I believe; espec. in hindsight] regarded as his Wikipedia:Vandalism to Joseph C. Wilson. The administrators at the time did not feel that he was vandalizing the article. I think that he was and is vandalizing it (sources that he gives do not support his statements).
    Please see Talk:Joseph C. Wilson for more information: if he has deleted my comments again there, I will re-post them. [Since first posting this notice, I have reposted most of those I could recover and updated this in these brackets.] The user has no authority to delete my article talkpage comments [or my comments from my own talk page] and is violating Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines in doing so. If more documentation is needed, I will post it. (I do not use an active link in my signature; but it shows up in editing history contributions, etc. For more information, see User talk:NYScholar.) Thank you. --NYScholar 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated in brackets; attempt to conform to format at beg. --NYScholar 05:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)][reply]
    1. 21:43 July 30 Diff
    2. 21:47 July 30 Diff
    3. 21:51 July 30 Diff
    4. 21:52 July 30 Diff
    5. 21:55 July 30 Diff
    • He engaged in multiple reverts (over three) to my user talk page: They are obvious in my history page at [16]:

    from 22:07 on July 30:

    1. 22:07 July 30 &
    2. 22:08 July 30diffs
    3. 22:10 July 30 diff
    4. 22:11 July 30 diff
    5. 22:12 July 30 diff
    6. 22:12 July 30 diff

    [See administrator's editing summary in reverting his reverts]

    [Note: at the top of this page, it states that if all the reverts are basically the same, one does not have to list each "diff" separately.]

    See my "N.B." listed for a long time on my talk page. Not only is he himself violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF, but he is violating Wikipedia:Etiquette via those violations of WP:3RR.

    • The user had already been blocked for a week for violations of WP:3RR and been warned by administrators that any such further uncivil behavior and subsequent violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (including the 3RR) could result in indefinite block. He returned and immediately engaged in this repeat behavior.
    • Along with these multiple deletions of my justifiable comments from Talk:Joseph C. Wilson, he posted a false and disingenuous account on his own talk page about what he was doing User talk:Tim Osman, which elicited an administrator's positive response to the false and disingenuous account (the administrator does not recognize the falseness of the account and, apparently, did not check his actual edits to the article to see if they supported his claims); click on that administrator's talk page for my comment about the problem; I did not respond on the user's talk page to avoid further personal attacks on me, given his behavior on my own talk page (the multiple reverts). His behavior violates many Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is not acceptable talk page behavior. His multiple reverts (deletions) of my comments on the talk page preceded the administrator's reverting his changes to the article. All his reversions of my talk page are the same sorts of deletions of my comments with unfounded claims of "vandalism". He violates WP:AGF in removing my work and my comments from the article talk page and then claiming that I am "vandalizing" the article, while he is obviously not following Wikipedia's core policies Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as linked inWP:BLP. Clearly, the administrator who undid his work to the article later does not agree with him. This user needs to be warned and blocked. By refusing to familiarize himself with Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines, he is wasting my time and the time of others, including administrators. --NYScholar 10:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    I blocked both editors for 48 hours. Both parties had been violating the talk page guidelines a lot; and technically this was a 3RR violation on both sides but I don't think 3RR is the main issue when it's on a talk page. Mangojuicetalk 14:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gazh reported by User:An Siarach (Result: 24 hours)

    Modern Celts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gazh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bdell555 reported by User:RedSpruce (Result:Closed, see discussion)

    Looks like a violation to me, though I cant seem to find where Bdell555 says his strategy is to edit war. EliminatorJR, please refrain from making such comments. Perspicacite 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Erisch reported by User:Darrenhusted (Result:24 hours)

    John Cena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Erisch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has been reverted by User:Bdve, followed by me, followed by User:Bmg916. Apologies for time taken, I have been on a phone call, I compiled the report as quickly as I could. Darrenhusted 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:140.247.152.100 reported by User:Bakasuprman (Result:24 hr block)

    Michael E. J. Witzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 140.247.152.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The user obviously knows about WP:BLP (though misquotes it) and edits from a 140.247.152.xx IP which redirects to Harvard University (incidentally where the subject teaches). Hornplease (talk · contribs) (an edit warrior on said page) lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts (incidentally where Harvard is located) and admitted to using a similar IP (Special:Contributions/140.247.23.213). I cannot book hornplease on RFCU because there is no sockpuppetry, but the similarity is uncanny.Bakaman 16:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a violation. You can take this to RFCU based on the anonymous user's incivility and argue it is being used as an attack account. Perspicacite 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Harvard Crimson is a clearly adequate and reliable source. Blocked. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mean Mr Mustard 17 reported by User:Drappel (Result: User already blocked indef)

    Carrot Top (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mean Mr Mustard 17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [23]
    User:DerHexer has already indef-blocked the perpetrator as a vandalism-only account. No further action necessary. --Stephan Schulz 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CmdrClow reported by User:Erik (Result: 24 hours)

    The Dark Knight (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CmdrClow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User:Xanthius reported by User:Gatorgalen (Result:No violation)

    Great Commission Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xanthius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [24]

    What's somewhat interesting here is that after an editor (myself) made three separately substantive edits, to avoid the 3RR rule this user reverted them all at once (ie the 1st revert is actually three), and likewise with the second. So depending on how you look at it that is 4-6 reverts. Gatorgalen 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, that's not how it works; a revert is one undoing of another editor's action or actions. Hence, there have been two reverts undertaken, and (unless there are two more) thus no violation of WP:3RR has been committed ~ Anthøny 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree. Even by your phrasing, he undid three "other editors' actions" in each time; he merely disguised it as one when it in fact is not. Please look closer. Gatorgalen 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rgfolsom reported by User:Orangemike (Result:No block)

    Robert Prechter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rgfolsom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made three reversions yesterday between 1000 and 1300. His reverts today included a ringing declaration that he will continue to revert "falsehoods" and misinterpretations on articles. ("These "facts" are deliberately incomplete and distorted to portray a living person in a negative light. I will remove as often as they appear.") (I believe the subject, Prechter, is Folsom's employer; the history of this and related topics is a highly contentious one here.) --Orange Mike 19:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide the four diffs that together constitute the WP:3RR violation ~ Anthøny 20:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope these are what you need: [25] [26] [27] Note that there is an ongoing case about this matter on the BLP noticeboard as well. --Orange Mike 20:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3rr policy does not apply to violations of BLP, which says:
    "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."
    "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is… a conjectural interpretation of a source…. If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply."
    These diffs show that THF sides with the critics' material, and uses a conjectural interpretation of a source.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34]
    As I explained on the BLP notice board, the diffs also show that I have tried to offer compromises edits that another editor received in good faith, but THF rejected the effort with insulting and uncivil language. Bad faith is manifest in these violations, and I have appealed for an administrator's intervention. Thank you.--Rgfolsom 20:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the suggestion of a COI, administrators may wish to know that there was an arbitration case about these issues decided earlier this year: here's the text of the decision.--Rgfolsom 20:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No block. If there are COI concerns, please post at WP:COI/N ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Worldatlas1989 reported by User:Algie The Pig (Result:)

    Pokémon Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Worldatlas1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Where are the diffs? Report will not be considered until it is presented in proper form. Raymond Arritt 23:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Taharqa reported by User:Egyegy (Result:)

    Appearance of the ancient Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Taharqa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [35]

    One of these is by an IP that he admits is his. Could someone also tell him to stop making racial comments and attacks like these [36] [37]. This is not the first time that he was blocked [38] for making very offensive attacks [39]. Egyegy 21:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, excuse me to whom ever this my concern, but that last so-called revert wasn't a revert at all, it was a contribution of my own, I didn't revert him in anyway. I can assure you that if you check the history of the page this person has never ever contributed to the article and his abuse in trying to undermine every single edit I make I'd consider wikistalking and harassment. He's followed me from page to page, reverting me on articles he's never ever dealt with before and is trying to intimidate me and cause me stress by doing this, and then making false reports such as this. I strongly feel that I don't deserve a block due to the situation and the fact that I didn't revert but made a contribution.. This is exactly what the person wants, "for me to be blocked".. The last edit was an addition, a contribution, I never knew that after reverting someone, you weren't allowed to make anymore contributions/good-faith edits for the rest of the day..Taharqa 22:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Now he is reverting thru a sock/meatpuppet [40] [41] that hasn't been used since his case was opened [42]. Egyegy 22:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    What are you talking about (we've been thru that nonsense!)? See this is what I mean, the person has an issue that I think would be better resolved with dispute resolution so he doesn't have to pursue so many outlandish claims. I reiterate, the fact that I know about the 3rr and noted that the said IP address was mine and I just wasn't logged in, should be a tell-tale sign that I was not reverting and intended on adhering to the policy... The first couple was reverting original research/POV, Jeeny also reverted the person. Yet this person here saw that and decided to join in the edit dispute. I did not revert him and only contributed a passage that reflects another source. That's it, I don't understand why this person would report me for that, unless he just WANTS me blocked. Not holding the person in bad-faith, but I do suspect harassment as he's been following me and reverting every edit I make. I seriously suggest dispute resolution as an alternative so that the person can stop following me around. Not trying to rant, so excuse me.. Taharqa 22:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm talking about you. The concern that this is your sockpuppet has been expressed by different users, it's hardly "outlandish". You also give yourself too much credit when you say that I'm "following" you or out to "harass" you. I always edit articles about Egypt. You only show up at these same articles to cause trouble and have apologized for it once [43]. But a short time after that you made those racial attacks on all Egyptian users. That's what harassment is. Egyegy 23:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ^Expressed by different users? Please. Even tho that isn't the issue, it was once expressed by Urthogie and due to your conflict disputes with me, you felt a need to submit to that preposterous conclusion which I won't entertain. Anyways, I stand by what I've stated above. Also please keep in mind that I've been on this article from the start and this person just showed up today, lead there from other article's i've edited where he's followed me.Taharqa 00:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to take this discussion to WP:RFCU. This is not the place. Perspicacite 18:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MarkCentury reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 24 hr)

    Steven E. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MarkCentury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Blocked for 24 hours. I count at least 5 reverts. Raymond Arritt 22:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Egyegy reported by User:Taharqa (No block: Page protected)

    Appearance of the ancient Egyptians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Egyegy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    3rd Revert: 21:57, 1 August 2007 - deletes entire section

    • 4th revert: 22:11, 1 August 2007 - Littering article with tags, couldn't wait to discuss, compromising article's integrity and he was even reverted by more than one person..
    • 5th revert: 23:48, 1 August 2007 - Restores picture that was previously reverted.
    • 6th revert: 23:48, 1 August 2007 - Restores tags that were previously reverted.


    ^^Reverts almost everyone who makes a contrary edit.. Ironic..Taharqa 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How are these "reverts"? I was placing tags on the questionable claims and I added a ref for the first. And "deletes entire section"? Have you heard of the phrase "gaming the system"? Egyegy 00:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    ^I was doing something similar and you reported me.. Either way, it is disruptive editing and aside from the tags, you reverted more than 3 times. It was a disruption. You even reverted the tag (dubious) even when it was sourced. You restored the picture, reverted black soil statement, deleted a section, etc, etc.. You are not innocent at all and have certainly caused may lay.Taharqa 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:AdrianTM reported by User:L (Result: 24 hrs)

    Linus Torvalds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AdrianTM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: Continually changing "used" (which is well known and provable) to "inspired by", which is highly POV, and WP:OR.

    User:FollowerofAllah reported by User:Arrow740 (Result:24 hours)

    Women and Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FollowerofAllah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DJ Bungi reported by User:VanTucky (Result:No violation; warning issued)

    Chihuahua (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DJ Bungi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    First off, obviously the following revert history is not in the same literal day. But since DJBungi, after being canvassed by the now blocked (for edit warring related to the same article) user User:Chichichihua, has consistently reverted the lead image of Chihuahua once every day for several days running now, against consensus and without any discussion at all. This user has been reverted, and sternly warned, by multiple editors and admins. I feel that this extended pattern of a once-a-day revert is an attempt to game the system so he can continue reverting indefinitely. VanTucky (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aquatraveller reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: 31 hrs)

    Augusta, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aquatraveller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Now that user is warned, if he reverts again, post a notice here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Edit warring seems to have stopped for now, I made some changes to the article that may address most of Aquatraveller's concerns. I'll repost if he continues. – Dreadstar † 04:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User is back, deleting content and reverting:

    User:70.189.74.49 reported by User:Ursasapien (Result: already blocked for vandalism)

    Thematic motifs of Lost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.189.74.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User:padraig reported by User:Biofoundationsoflanguage (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)

    List of British flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Both these editors are inputing false information into these articles, the Ulster Banner is not recognised by either the British Government or the Northern Ireland Assembly or its Government The Northern Ireland Executive. The Uslter banner was used between 1953 and 1972 by the former Northern Ireland Government as a government banner, this Government was abolished in 1973 under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and its banner was abolished with it. The flag has some sports use today but that is un-official. They are trying to insert it into articles and templates dealing with Northern Ireland today, which is wrong and shouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia as it undermines the worth of the Encyclopedia. I should also add that User:Astrotrain has been blocked about six times since January for both edit warring on this issue and making personal attacks on me and other users, he seldom posts here and when he does its mainly to engagein edit wars. I regard his constant edit wars as vandalism, and inserting WP:OR and WP:POV, therefore although I may have technically broken 3RR on this, I haven't checked if I have or not it wasn't intentional.--padraig 10:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SqueakBox reported by User:Samantha Pignez (Result:Blocked, 31 hours)

    Anti-pedophile activism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: N/A (multiple versions) on 31 Jul and 1 Aug.

    Seems to be a moderately nice guy and established user with good faith, but his repeated reverts coupled with accusations towards other users / libelling websites as pedophile friendly is actually quite disruptive to this article. Apparently, he is a fan of "Perverted Justice" and wants their "corrupted" opponent out of the article altogether. Any help in shadowing this new article is very much appreciated. Regards, Sam. Samantha Pignez 10:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.13.91.237 reported by User:Ursasapien (Result:Blocked, 10 hours)

    Jean Charles de Menezes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:82.13.91.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nishidani reported by User:Amoruso (Result:8 hours)

    Hebron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    8h. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:209.212.28.50 reported by User:Erik (Result:24h)

    Choke (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.212.28.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    24h. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nakagawa0 reported by User:ShadowJester07 (Result:already blocked)

    Resident Evil 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nakagawa0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous (Not Sure if this the right way to do it)

    Comment: This user has reverted the page at least six different times today. In the past, he has attempted similar things, despite a consensus on the talk page. Me, and another user have already asked him to stop, and pointed out why we were reverting hat he was doing. Alas, he is bent on using the Wikipedia page to express his opinion about racism in video games. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 17:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I just reported this user on AIV as an SPA troll. I wasn't aware of this report at the time. As a result the user was blocked for 7 days.--Atlan (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rgfolsom reported by User:Ministry of random walks (updated) (Result:Article protected)

    Robert Prechter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rgfolsom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: here

    Further comment. Rgfolsom claims to be deleting because of WP:BLP, but that policy says (here):

    Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy.

    This material is not derogatory (though negative) and is well-sourced to a Dow Jones publication, one of the best sources in the industry. (This has been refiled with the update.) Ministry of random walks 18:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This report ignores the outcome of a 3rr report filed less that 24 hours ago -- all the reverts involve the same text that violates BLP. The result yesterday was no block: "No block. If there are COI concerns, please post at WP:COI/N ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)" Please see above, the report is still on this page. Thanks.--Rgfolsom 18:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The earlier filing was rejected because it was mal-formed and Rgfolsom had not yet violated 3RR: he was on his third revert, as a comparison of Jossi's post and the revert list above shows. Since Rgfolsom has reverted three more times since then, he is now in breach of 3RR. Ministry of random walks 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has now been protected by Jossi. However, I cannot see a violation of WP:BLP in the paragraph that User:Rgfolsom continues to remove, so this is a final warning that removing sourced information will result in an immediate block. WP:BLP is not a 'get out of jail free' card to remove sourced material, so edit sumaries such as "Reverting BLP violation, as often as it appears" are not relevant in this case. Content disputes belong on the talk page of the article. ELIMINATORJR 01:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FerryUser reported by User:Erik (Result:Already blocked)

    The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FerryUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Chronicles of Narnia
    Prince Caspian
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    Indiana Jones 4
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    The page history clearly shows the user signing on from his IP to his registered handle in the process, as the registered handle had not made any edits before that. 172.209.243.209, the editor's IP, may need to be blocked as well.


    User:Frater FiatLux reported by User:GlassFET (Result:User already indef blocked)

    Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Frater_FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    User knows about 3RR as they have been previously blocked for it, see their block log. User has also threatened intentional disruption of multiple articles here. GlassFET 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm semi-involved here so I won't do it, but the "on wheels" nature of the current dispute would make a page move protection, until there is consensus, helpful.--Isotope23 talk 20:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tigeroo reported by User:Beit_Or (Result:1 week)

    Infidel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tigeroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    All reverts pertain to "In Hinduism" and "In Judaism" sections. Beit Or 21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Tigeroo for one week. It is his fourth 3RR block in a row Alex Bakharev 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Picapole reported by Pete (Result: Final warning)

    • This editor does not repeat reversions very quickly, so there has been no violation within a 24-hour period. However, nearly every edit the editor has made has been the same unwarranted reversion. Attempts to engage him/her in discussion by several editors have been ignored. I believe a block is warranted.

    Lars Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Picapole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -Pete 23:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor hasn't reverted since being warned two days ago, but will warn the editor that any further edit warring without discussion will lead to blocks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I must have lost track of the sequence. Thank you, your resolution seems appropriate. -Pete 01:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yankee.doodle.666 reported by User:arcayne (Result: Warning)

    Template:Sirius Black. Yankee.doodle.666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [44]

    Contributor was warned before they performed their 4th (and 5th) revert of the edit. Account appears to be mostly a single-purpose user, although the edits appear to be in good faith. Except for this violation, the editor seems to have good edits. I would recommend either a warning or short block, to keep the article stable. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs of the reverts in question. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure (though I thought that if they were all the same, multiple diffs weren't needed), my bad:

    Note that the partial reverts addressed part of the information reverted in the other reverts, specifically the middle name of Sirius Black and the statement by Sirius mistakenly calling Harry Potter by his father's name. I think the partials are also reverts in their own right, but I would imagine that it could be open to interpretation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    header 1 header 2 header 3
    row 1, cell 1 row 1, cell 2 row 1, cell 3
    row 2, cell 1 row 2, cell 2 row 2, cell 3

    The editor appears fairly new and has engaged in some discussion, so no block for now, but has been warned that further edit warring will lead to blocks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by Getaway (Result: 24 hours each)

    • This editor has been removing information from the Ward Churchill article over and over, 4 times in 3 and one half hours. The information has been in the article for almost two years. The information is highly relevant and it is reliable sourced.

    Ward Churchill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    --Getaway 23:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs of the reverts in question. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The diffs of the reverts are:

    --Getaway 23:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors violated 3RR, 24 hours each. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Muntuwandi reported by User:Fourdee (Result: 24 hours)

    Race_and_intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been warned for 3RR before and has reported others for it, knows full well about it. Has been engaging in edit war with User:MoritzB in this article quite persistently. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 17:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Frikkers reported by User:VanTucky (Result: 31 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Boerboel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Frikkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC) This is technically between the 29th and today, but as there are again four reverts in this time period, all directly following a previous block on the 28th for 3RR violation on the exact same article in the exact same manner, I feel this is still an application of the 3RR. Frankly, the continued once a day reversions seem like an attempt to game the system by staying outside the 24-hour period. The user still completely refuses to make talk comments of any kind, despite extensive warnings by multiple users. For a history of blocks and warnings, see the user talk history, as the user regularly blanks his talk. VanTucky (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yqbd reported by User:ConfuciusOrnis (Result:72 Hours)

    Talk:Intelligent Design (edit | [[Talk:talk:Intelligent Design|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yqbd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Zirtechie reported by User:bakashi10 (Result: Edit Warring has Stopped)

    INSEAD. Zirtechie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [49]


    User:L reported by User:AdrianTM (Result:No Action)

    Linus Torvalds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 06:53, 28 July 2007 User removed essential sentence about Linus Torvalds from the introduction, after I added back in a place where it made more sense he kept reverting the original consensus-built sentence. With this occasion I will satisfy my curiosity to see if: "In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally" are only empty words for admins.
    • I didn't warn User:L about 3RR, but he seems very well versed in 3RR since he managed to fill in a 3RR form to report me in 7 minutes after my last revert.
    • You just came off a 24 hour block so I understand why this wasn't posted before but we are not going to block a user for a 3RR violation that took place 2 days ago. The idea is to halt revert warring not to even the score. Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for being reasonable Spartaz, but just for the record, according to WP:3RR A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, which means the first one was clearly not a revert, as I was just editing, not undoing their actions. In addition, the fourth one wasn't intentional, as I was just adding a source to my statement. I wouldn't have reverted their content if it had matched what the source has said. That leaves us with just two revisions, and that's just asking for WP:RS --L-- 12:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I understand this position, I don't understand why the first admin who took action against me didn't heed the bolded text on this very page: "In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally". I am also disappointed that people well versed in 3RR reports get a free ride while users who don't look into ratting other people get banned. Again, to me only to figure out where and how to fill in the 3RR report form took a long time, while User:L who apparently is not a stranger to 3RR warring and bulling people took no time at all and filled in the report form in less than 7 minutes after my last reply. That in itself would not be a problem if admins would apply the rule uniformely and as the bold quote said all sides equally -- that's my real problem in this case. Thanks for your attention though, I didn't even expect somebody to review this because people usually think that the person who put the issue in their face is the problem and don't investigate the real issue. User:L, be happy you got scot-free this time with 3RR and you managed to block the other editor involved, bravo, well done! -- AdrianTM 13:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And once again, I did not violate the rule. As to the rest of it, yes, I am familiar with policy, as all editors should be. It has nothing to do with bullying or getting 'the other editor blocked', and the fact that you think that's what it's about shows you are far, far off the mark in your reason for reporting this --L-- 13:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't kid yourself, you did violate the policy, you didn't get banned for the reason explained above by Spartaz, not because you didn't violate the policy. To the admins: that's exactly why you should apply the policy to all the sides equally because users get the impression that they didn't do anything wrong if they are not punished while the other party involved gets punished. It's also a simple matter of fairness.... not that fairness is something THAT important... -- AdrianTM 14:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lester2 reported by User:Blnguyen (Result: 48 Hours)

    John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lester2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 2:26
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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


    User:Blnguyen reported by User:Pigmypossum (Result: No violation)

    John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Blnguyen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: User:Blnguyen is an Admin who has issued recent 3RR warnings to others [52] in the same dispute for the same article, but continued to violate the rule himself. 3RR rules state that it applies to "all Wikipedians.""A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." (See Block request above this one)

    No violation: this edit was a reversion of simple vandalism and is not counted under the 3RR. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scisser104 reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result:24-hour block)

    Helen Lovejoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Scisser104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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


    User:Gaimhreadhan reported by User:Brixton Busters (Result: 72 hrs)

    Mairéad Farrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gaimhreadhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User is constantly changing PIRA to IRA (amongst other changes) despite there being no consensus for this on the relevant talk page. Brixton Busters 00:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.154.139.58 reported by User:JForget (Result:24 hrs)

    Barnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.154.139.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [53]

    Edit war by the IP and User:Discospinster. The IP keeps on persisting that there is a market every Wednesday at that location. Discospinster and a few others editors and including myself reverted the change because it was non a notable entry or event and was poorly written also but the IP kept on doing for 6-7 times over the last hour.

    User:padraig reported by User:Biofoundationsoflanguage (Result: Warnings)

    List of British flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • He was blocked for 10 hours for breaching the 3RR a couple of days ago (see above). I asked him on his talk page to undo his most recent revert [61] which he has ignored.

    His disguised reverts have been against the wishes of three editors. Sorry if I have done anything wrong. This is only my second time doing this (the first time I was assisted). Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I didn't ignore his message there, I replied to him on my talk page, this editor and User:Astrotrain have been disruptive editing on a number of articles over the past few days and editwarring and revert all attempts to fix the errors they are inserting. They have been removing verified information and links to push their POV. I have ask admins a number of times to intervene, but so far nothing has been done.--padraig 11:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They have also ignored the discussion on the Talkpage here.--padraig 11:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Padraig's first "revert" wasn't one, so technically no violation here, but looking at the history there are a number of editors skirting up to the limits of 3RR before someone else from their POV takes over. Looking at the talkpage, there doesn't appear to be much hope of agreement between the two factions either; still, this needs to go back to the talkpage, rather than this pointless edit-warring. If necessary, the page will have to be protected (in the Wrong Version of course), and blocks handed out for violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of 3RR. ELIMINATORJR 12:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dale-swiss reported by User:Van helsing (Result: 4 days by Rama)

    Switzerland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Dale-swiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [66]

    User:Porches reported by User:Prester John (Result:Indefinite by Tom Harrison)

    Islamic fundamentalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Porches (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [67]

    This new user created an account (believed by several editors to be a sock) less than 3 hours ago, and has been edit warring on multiple articles ever since.

    Would the blocking admin also please prevent the IP from creating new accounts? If it's User:His excellency there will be another sock to follow. It seems to be his hobby on the weekends to waste his and others' time this way. Arrow740 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like the right call has already been made. We still should use checkuser to get to the bottom of the sock puppeteer. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 21:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The admin who works this case may wish to see this discussion for context. Raymond Arritt 21:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The context is that a banned editor is being allowed to influence the project. The merits of the edits are not part of this discussion. Arrow740 22:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Bremskraft reported by User:Neitherday (Result: 24 hours)

    Feminists for Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bremskraft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User has well over 500 edits, though I'm not sure if what the qualifications are of newer users, so I understand if this ignored. I failed in giving a warning, this is my first time reporting a 3RR. Neitherday 03:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has acknowledged violating WP:3RR and refuses to self-revert. [68]

    Comments I believe User User:Bremskraft is certainly able to make good edits but is abusing the system and disruptive editing on numerous fronts. My first interaction was reverting edits to the Discrimination template which stopped once they were confronted and then told the template was not what needed changing but the articles needed improving. This has been a very frustrating experience digging through all the edits to see where the potentially usable material of an article went. Please note this from the Fringe theories/Noticeboard[69] and User:Bremskraft deleting talk page comments asking for explanation for certain edits[70][71][72][73] including prior 3RR warning tags[74][75]
    New user User:RebelAcademics is also a potential puppet of User:Bremskraft created to weigh in on talk page comments after this 3rr was started. Benjiboi 05:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also new user User:Ladeda76 seems coincidentally available. Benjiboi 05:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference User talk:131.216.41.16 might also be the same person[76] Benjiboi 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Duggy 1138 reported by User:arcayne (Result: Article protected)

    Countdown (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Duggy 1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [77]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [84]

    Comment: this editor began reverting edits, adding uncited information, then began adding 'cn' tags (1, 2) to facts not needing citation (being part of the actual current storyline). Duggy1138 offers other edits that are equally uncited (frankly, the info needed isn't forthcoming just yet, as the series is ongoing), so the edits are not successive or seeking consensus. He is attempting to introduce uncited info. WP:RS, ATT and V have all been pointed out numerous times on both the user's Talk page as well as the article Discussion page, to no avail. A block seems necessary (and maybe some mentoring), as the constant edits are disruptive and contrary to WP stated policy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't feel my edits are any more speculation than many of those accepted in the same section. I have been fumbling for a wording that implies less, and have offered a citation (non-textual, but visual). The addition of attributing the speculation to forums that have made that speculation was clearly a disaster. However, I am of the opinion that when discussing the promotional poster in question, the obvious references that the creators are making (whether true or tricks) should be made. One of the characters looks like someone, and is meant to look like someone, and should be mentioned as such or the reader is missing important information.
    Duggy 1138 08:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, that sort of debate is discussed in the Discussion area for the article, not in numerous edit summaries of your reverts. When you ignore the advice from people talking to you in your User Talk page, asking you to take it to Discussion instead of reverting, and choose to revert yet again when you are told that a 3RR report was filed about your violation, it sends a clear message that you think your viewpoint is more important than the rules that we all have to follow. What you have done here is address your reasons for reverting, not the idea that you have broken the rule in the first place, and simply don't care. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The spirit of 3RRR is to stop sterile edit wars. To stop to opposite points of view simply reverting what the other has said. Three is a number so that there is a line to draw. However, I have, for the most part trying to configure the information I feel needs to be on the page in such a way that it confirms to the interuptation of the rules as appears around it. You have a very strict interuptation of the rules which stops some important information appearing in the article, but somehow allows other information and ironically ignores WP:IAR. I completely agree that we can't interupt the information for the reader, but we need to be able to give the reader all the information. I'm just trying to find a way within the rules to give the reader that information. You just revert anything you don't like.
    Duggy 1138 23:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Article protected. There appears to be longstanding conflict over the past week or two. -- tariqabjotu 02:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vitalmove reported by User:Perspicacite (Result: 24 h, all participants admonished)

    PRESS TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vitalmove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 06:19
    • He's already been blocked in the past for 3RR. I asked him to self-revert[85] and he ignores the post. Considering his history of personal attacks (and the many he's made today) and his past block for violating 3RR I think an extended block is in order. Perspicacite 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that your request to self-revert was phrased in a rather confrontational manner. Raymond Arritt 22:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another user, Cool Hand Luke, already suggested he self-revert.[86] I was trying to get the no personal attacks means no personal attacks across to him. Perspicacite 22:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted in these talk pages [87], Cool hand luke and I are in agreement about the content of the page. The changes which he and I painstakingly discussed and agreed to were reverted by Perspicacite. The three links are below. Someone please read the ANI compaint against him and so something. --Vitalmove 22:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see earlier ANI complaint against Perspicacite for cyber-bullying here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#Please_help_re:_User:_Perspicacite . Also, please not that the prior 3RR block was initiated by perspicacite and was unblocked as soon as people learned about his cyber-stalking. Perspicacite is attempting to game the rules to bully anyone who disgrees with him on an edit dispute. Please read the ANI complaint with all its included links. --Vitalmove 21:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid you misunderstand the point. You knew about the policy when you violated it this time (and last time too). The only reason Vitalemove was unblocked last time is because it had been too long since the violation to take administrative action - words of the blocking administrator, not me. Perspicacite 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You did three reversions first. [88] 10:39 Aug 5, [89] 19:10 Aug 5, [90] 19:19 Aug 5. You deleted revisions which Cool hand luke & I had painstakingly discussed and agreed to in [91]. That's the point. You're attempting to game the rules to cyber-bully, which is the topic of your ANI complaint. Previously, as noted in the ANI article, you falsely accused me of cyber-puppetry, joined with someone (who later abandoned you) to delete another of my articles (you failed), and filed numerous baseless complaints about me all over the board. It's all in the ANI complaint. I only hope someone takes the time to carefully read it and do something about you. --Vitalmove 22:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ? When did I ever accuse you of cyber-bullying? You were already admonished on WP:AN. Perspicacite 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant cyber-puppetry. I edited to fix it. I'm going to keep those ANI complaints up and add to them every time you do something to disrupt my Wikipedia experience. Don't think for one second that you are going to harass me, or anyone, out of wikipedia or any other forum. I suggest you find another outlet.--Vitalmove 22:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm blocking User:Vitalmove for 24 hours, based on the 3RR violation but also in part on the aggravating circumstances presented by this disturbing edit. All parties involved in PRESS TV are admonished to refrain from edit warring and to focus on the edits, not on the editors. Raymond Arritt 23:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mista-X reported by User:turtlescrubber (Result: 100 hours)

    Kimbo Slice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mista-X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [92]
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Edit summary warning:[98] User talk page warning:[99]

    Then he threatens me "I will make sure you get fucked as well" and is not worried about being blocked, ""Big deal, I know you're a little bitch by the way you have been acting, and 24 hours doesn't hurt.""' [100]

    He also calls me a "dumbass"[101] and says: "you really need to grow a brain pal." [102] So with the 3rr, civility issues and the threat, I would like to see some sort of action taken. I have had no previous interactions with this user and all of this is from today and over a relatively minor issue. Thanks for your time.---Added fifth revert----

    Turtlescrubber 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for one hundred hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Turtlescrubber 02:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bloggerhead reported by User:Kww (Result:24 hours)

    Spam_Prevention_Early_Warning_System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bloggerhead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    User:Bason0 reported by User:Komdori (Result:warned31h)

    User talk:Komdori (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Komdori|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bason0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Insistent addition of false biographical material about me on my user and my talk page. Newly registered account being used in a coordinated effort at reverting several articles.

    I warned the user. Tom Harrison Talk 13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, Tom, I just blocked the user for 31 since I felt he/she was clearly harassing Komdori. Did this before I saw your reply. If you want, we can discuss this further. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Komdori reported by User:Bason0 (Result:no violation)

    Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Komdori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Komdori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Necessary for newer users: he is a japanese. act like a korean. and edit so many korea japan relation topic. biased to japan. must correct his country. check his ip, and modify false information about him. No racsim. and no personal attack. just he pretend to korean. and edit korean page. also, insert false information and delete some page.(japan and china biased edit) this is a point. and admin, plz check his ip, and change his country.Bason0 12:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation. Tom Harrison Talk 13:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nightshadow28 reported by User:Bason0 (Result:no violation)

    Corner Gas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.149.47.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [109]

    This is an ongoing thing, but the reverts I listed are within the last 24 hours. (Apologies if I did something wrong; this is my first time reporting one of these.) he is a remove my edit, continually. also, my edit is proved. and no vandalsim. but, he continually, delete my page. request to admin : plz, stop his valdalsim reverting. if you see my edit page, my edit page at [110] is toally legal.Bason0 12:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This reporter have not been fully understanding the rule of WP:3RR and other Wikipedia's rules. Moreover, as it is in other report by Komdori, reporter has performed destructive edits. I wish rejection of this report. --Nightshadow28 13:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop removing other person's comment.[111] --Nightshadow28 13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (2nd) Please stop removing other person's comment.[112] Please do not vandalise Admin's noticeboard. --Nightshadow28 13:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation. Tom Harrison Talk 13:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Searchmaven reported by User:Ghepeu (Result:)

    Marco Polo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Searchmaven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [113]

    User:Chrisjnelson reported by User:Jmfangio (Result:)

    Michael Vick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • There has not yet been a direct violation of this today. There have been warnings issued in the past and this violates the spirit of the rule (and that is reportable according to the project page). Please see Template_talk:Infobox_NFLactive#WP:3O_request where impartial parties support this. RFC has confirmed this as well. WP:ANI has been raised as well regarding behavior surrounding this. User is asserting a circumvention of the spirit of this rule here. Previous warnings were done here19:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.19.31.154 reported by User:Fall Of Darkness (Result:)

    Criss Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 76.19.31.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User continuously vandalizing with nonsensical content. User was warned 3 separate times on their talk page.

    User:70.162.217.91 reported by User:Fall Of Darkness (Result:)

    Criss Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.162.217.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by User:Qaka (Result:)

    List of islands in the South China Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Response
    Qaka is a sockpuppet of permanently banned user Instantnood. I'm free to revert him a thousand times a day. SchmuckyTheCat

    User:Jmfangio reported by User:Chrisjnelson (Result:)

    Michael Vick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jmfangio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been warned by an admin about violating 3RR before (see: User talk:Jmfangio/1#3RR, though clearly fails to understand how it works as he still denied he had. Further evidence that he does not understand 3RR is that he has twice reported me for it, including once today, yet both times I had not as indication by the history of the articles.►Chris Nelson 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by User:Qaka (Result:)

    Image talk:Dependent territories 2007.png (edit | [[Talk:Image talk:Dependent territories 2007.png|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: None (He keeps blanking the new page and subsitutes with a speedy tag)

    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 will 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=149620706"