Wikipedia : Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive43

Response - I'd like to mention that the last one was a user called "John Dias" external linking to an article by "John Dias." I believe that should qualify as 'spam' and hence be a 'simple or blatant' vandalism that I was reverting. The Behnam 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Prior version: 14:02, 2 April 2007 2nd Paragraph: "Most journalists..."

1st revert: 21:42, 2 April 2007 (Replaces "Most journalists...")
2nd revert: 13:37, 3 April 2007 (Replaces "Most journalists...")
3rd revert: 15:28, 3 April 2007 (Replaces "Most journalists...")
4th revert: 17:26, 3 April 2007 (Replaces "Most journalists...")
5th revert: 17:45, 3 April 2007 (Replaces "Most journalists...")

Comment Urthogie has been blocked for 3RR before, and was asked several days ago to stop extensive reverting on this page.[1] After discussion, I let it go, but Urthogie has refused to stop, and several editors are fed up.[2] I asked Urthogie to revert himself here[3] (and last time) but he has refused.[4] A good contributor at times, but needs to follow 3RR. --Mackan79 18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We are actually starting to make progress on the page, and the revert wars have stopped.--Urthogie 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Urthogie still doesn't seem to understand that he needs to wait for the discussion on the talk page to happen on these contentious articles before (re)making his many edits, nor that other editors are not comfortable negotiating with him through back-and-forth reversions. Progress or not, that remains the problem here, which is why I filed the report. Mackan79 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer 07:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Hamsacharya dan reported by User:Watchtower Sentinel (Result:article deleted)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 03:28, 3 April 2007
1st revert: 20:56, 2 April 2007
2nd revert: 03:28, 3 April 2007
3rd revert: 06:14, 3 April 2007

Comments

Hamsacharya dan is a confirmed COI editor being an ordained preacher and the sole contact person in charge of media relations in the subject's organization (please see COI Archive 4 Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath). He has been blocked twice in the past for 3RR because of reverting the same article to his POV version block log. - Sentinel 09:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The reported user ~~repeatedly~~ removed the Afd notice from the article. — Athænara ✉ 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In re ~~strikeout~~: Sorry, lost track. The 03:28 edit removed the Afd notice with "interesting reaction … I wonder what you would do if I do this?" edit summary. — Æ. ✉ 22:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Though my edit summary was enigmatic, it was aimed at the fact that I was reverting the libelous claims of Watchtower Sentinel. Removal of the AfD tag was an accidental effect of reverting to a page without the AfD tag without carrying the tag over - a hasty error on my part. Why would I willingly remove a tag for an AfD that I voted to delete on? I wouldn't - it was a mistake! But I wont tolerate libel on wikipedia, and will go to whatever lengths necessary to prosecute such behavior. --Hamsacharya dan 04:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hamsacharya dan is a confirmed COI editor on the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath article. A consensus has already been reached with regards to the present state of the article and anyone can read it at Talk:Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath. Hamsacharya dan, an ordained preacher and the sole contact person in charge of media relations in the subject's organization (proof of these facts can also be found at the discussion page of the article in question), has used every trick in the book to maintain this article, which was one hundred percent promotional before we managed to prune it to its present near NPOV version.

Hamsacharya dan has been blocked twice for 3RR and has a history of using at least two proxy servers as sockpuppets (User:128.195.163.203 and User:128.195.111.122) to push his personal agenda. His most recent "contributions" are 1. a revert of the article Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath to his preferred version, and 2. an entry at User:Athaenara's talk page threatening to prosecute. His edit summaries, that he cleverly described as "enigmatic", were actually meant to trick editors who are unfamiliar with the situation. Here are the edit summaries, you decide whether they are "enigmatic", as asserted by the confirmed COI editor, or just plain tricky:

"don't mind me, just testing something out...when is this thing slated for deletion?" - 20:56, 2 April 2007 Hamsacharya dan, then reverted the article to his preferred version

"interesting reaction W.S., I wonder what you would do if I do this?" - 03:28, 3 April 2007 Hamsacharya dan, then reverted the article to his preferred version

"sorry Athanaea and sorry W.S., you're both absolutely right. That was careless editing, not meant as vandalism...shoot...definitely didn't mean to do that!" - 06:14, 3 April 2007 Hamsacharya dan, then reverted the article AGAIN to his preferred version

This editor is taking us for fools.

There is actually an unresolved and meticulously-detailed RFC filed aginst this user in as far back as April 30, 2006 (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hamsacharya_dan), and though it involves 3 confirmed sockpuppets (taken as one person) it still has the endorsement of 3 other users in good standing namely User:Computerjoe, User:Priyanath, and myself) making the total number of endorsers 4. I respectfully submit this report to the concerned Administrator and/or System Operator with trust and optimism. Thank you in advance for looking into this matter. - Sentinel 09:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears the article has been deleted because of an AfD discussion. Makes it hard for me to check diffs, though I could if necessary. Note, though, that there are only three reverts here; there need to be more than three for a 3RR vio. Also, I think it's fair to say the edit war has stopped, since the article itself is deleted now; therefore a block could hardly be considered preventative. Heimstern Läufer 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:The Behnam reported by User:Agha Nader (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule

1st revert: 09:08, 31 March 2007
2nd revert: 14:15, 31 March 2007
3rd revert: 00:54, 1 April 2007
4th revert: 08:14, 1 April 2007

Comments: A clear violation of
WP:3RR, all the reverts are content-related and have been visibly marked as "rv" or revert. The user has been previously blocked for 3RR as well. --Agha Nader
22:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That users edit may have been bona fide. Furthermore the link was to an article about the film 300. They may just have the same name. Would it be fair to remove your edits if they linked to an article by someone named Behnam? We cannot be sure it was spam, and definitely not sure it was vandalism. Agha Nader 23:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

I don't feel like arguing with you again Nader. Much of your presence on WP, including your entry into WP, seems dedicated to opposing me on various fronts, and I don't feel like playing these games with you. I'll let the admin decide whether or not Johndias (talk · contribs) adding an external link to an article by "John Dias" seems like self-promotional spam. I don't give much credence to your far-fetched scenario (a different guy by the same name promoting that article) as I believe that based on the information available my edit is justified anyway. Cheers. The Behnam 23:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, as you should have done with John Dias. Agha Nader 23:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

I have my reasons, but this isn't an RFC about you so I'll not elaborate here. Anyway, I don't know whether you have fought spam much on WP but self-promotion is a regular problem and often comes from users named after themselves or their companies. I believe my reversion was completely reasonable counter-spam and doesn't qualify for 3RR. I think any further elaboration will be repetitive and unnecessary, as I trust the admin's judgment on this one. The Behnam 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make ill-considered accusations, I am referring to your statement "Much of your presence on WP, including your entry into WP, seems dedicated to opposing me on various fronts".

Please read WP:SELFPUB. Self-published sources are not classified as spam. Further they are not totally banned, there are exceptions. This may be an exception since it is from a well known website. It is not from a "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs". Agha Nader 00:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

If you think it helps the article, you can try to re-add it. I'll try to be clearer. I removed it simply because it seemed like blatant spam, in that John Dias was promoting his own article and employer's website on WP. Hence, an anti-spam revert, not a content dispute. I'm not sure if it is worthwhile to argue further, so how about we just step back and let the admin decide? Cheers. The Behnam 00:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please look at User:The Behnam's edits? Not only he's been stalking me, making 3 reverts on pages I have edited to gain an advantage, he's clearly gaming 3RR as if he's entitled to 3 reverts on every page he edits. If you look at his history, you see reverts after reverts on every page he touches but stopping right at 3 reverts to avoid getting blocked. Is this acceptable behavior? ArmenianJoe 07:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I explained on my page, but you keep vandalizing my page to remove my response. Simply ridiculous. The Behnam 07:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User ArmenianJoe, whose otherwise dormant account has suddenly become active today after two months inactivity [5], and who despite his short lifespan and less than 60 edits, already has been blocked twice [6], is very disruptive. Indeed, he is at the very least a meatpuppet, however, I do not doubt for a second that he is a sock puppet of one of the well-known sock puppeteers. adil 07:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Zachorious reported by User:FateClub (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: [7]
1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Least_Developed_Countries&diff=108258087&oldid=107386266
2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Least_Developed_Countries&diff=112538316&oldid=111895215
3rd revert: [8]
4th revert: [9]
5th revert: [10]

Comments: The article divides countries in regions with one being Eurasia, why do we include Europe if there will never be an European country in this list, so I changed id to "Asia", Zachorious reverted me with the argument of geologically being one region. I difer with the opinion so I changed it again with my response, then I was reverted. I was ready to give it up, and I wrote him a message, but then I realize that an anonymous user had made the same change (59.95.54.134) on March 31. Another user had made the same change weeks before or so (72.224.89.150). Other users have made similar changes (user:Avyfain) with same results... a revert. Please assist. --FateClub 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC); The reverts have to all be within a 24 hour period. These edits span a 2 month period. I don't even see 3 reverts in any 24 hour period. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Sandpiper (Result:48 hours)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:58 3 April 2007
1st revert: 18:31 3April 2007
2nd revert: 19:45 3 April 2007
3rd revert:19:54 3 April 2007
4 th revert:00:38 4 April 2007 (other material also deleted)
5th revert:01:12 4 April 2007 (as 4th, reverted to version of 00:42 4 April http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horcrux&oldid=120101235)

*6th revert:01:34 4 April 2007 (as 4th, reverted to version of 00:42) No, take that one back, it was reverting a vandal. Thought I had one too many Sandpiper)

Comments: That took a surprisingly long time to post. User has been warned previously about 3RR.; In fact, he was just blocked for it less than 2 weeks ago on the same article. I blocked him for 48H. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mel Etitis reported by User:BozMo (Result:no action)

Three-revert rule

1st revert: 9.28 3 April
2nd revert: 10.59 3 April
3rd revert: 13.17 3 April
4th revert: 22.09 3 April

Comments: User:Mel Etitis & User:BozMo are both sysops. The first three reverts were identical, the fourth is not identical but includes reverts of the same material. I don't think the article is a particular issue but 4RR is aggressive editing.

I was reverting the unexplained removal (by the subject of the article) of material and the addition of unsourced claims and an advertisement for the subject's book-selling Website. I was under the impression that our policy was to provide sources, and not to allow people to place adverts on articles about themselves. Moreover, I explained the situation and the relevant policies at the Talk page; despite some extremely polarised messages there, and User:BozMo's deleting of another editor's comments on the dubious grounds that it was "slander", no-one gave cogent reasons for allowing this edit. I hadn't noticed that I'd reverted more than three times (they were separated for me by a great many other edits elsewhere), and would have refrained from reverting the final edit (which at least left out the peacockery and the advert) if I'd known. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The 1st and 4th reverts listed are only partial reverts. Not only that but changes to bios have to be sourced under the BLP guidelines. All I would ask, Mel, is that next time you site BLP when you do your reverts so it's clear that that's the reason. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell you only get an exemption from 3RR for BLP if you are "Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons". I read that as requiring it to be BOTH "unsourced or poorly sourced" AND "controversial". As pointed out in the edit summary and talk page the material Mel 4RRed was not contraversial. It may have been peacock or advertising but that doesn't give you an exemption. Also several phrases were identically reverted in amongst the larger revert. So I think still think it is a clear rule violation (but I am happy with the implied apology). --BozMo talk 10:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if you are happy with the apology, then I think any other discussion on this is moot. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

no action as apology seems to be accepted. Sysops should know better too-;)Rlevse 22:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ArmenianJoe reported by User:Grandmaster (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Comments: This user has previously been blocked for 3RR. Grandmaster 07:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just checked again, User:ArmenianJoe reverted himself [12], so not sure if it is still 3RR violation. Grandmaster 07:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Zagozagozago reported by User:CloudNine (Result:14h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: [13]
1st revert: 11:00
2nd revert: 15:35
3rd revert: 16:19
4th revert: 17:51

Comments

This user has previously been blocked for 3RR on Stadium Arcadium. CloudNine 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked for 14 hours. MiTfan3 also violated 3RR; as he/she had not been warned, I have chosen to give a warning rather than block. Heimstern Läufer 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Otto4711 reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule

violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments: User has previously been blocked for 3RR violations. -- Scorpion 17:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A deviation from consensus is not in itself vandalism and, generally, is not exempt from 3RR. 24 hours. El_C 00:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:67.101.243.74 reported by User:Awiseman (Result:No action)

Three-revert rule

violation on User talk:67.101.243.74. 67.101.243.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to [15]
1st revert: 17:15, 3 April 2007
2nd revert: 11:40, 4 April 2007
3rd revert: 12:56, 4 April 2007
4th revert: 13:02, 4 April 2007

Comments

67.101.243.74 is a shared IP address. Initial reversions were part of an edit war in which this IP account (albeit with a different physical human being behind it than myself) requested mediation from two administrators based upon warnings from the edit war. It was established that both editors considered the warnings bogus and the administrators observed the rights of the editors to remove the warnings in their comments (see User talk:Robotman1974. Awiseman has added this IP to this list after disregarding comments and the aforementioned discussion by restoring those comments to the talk page (in a dispute in which he took no part), baiting this user at this IP to revert following previous reverts by other physical users. It should also be noted that a review of both Awiseman's and IP's contribution logs demonstrate and aggressive tendency on the part of Awiseman to moderate IP's edits. 67.101.243.74 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw the comments, this is the last comment on Robotman1974's page:

“

John makes some good points. Invalid warnings can be removed. Removal of valid warnings, well there's some disagreement there, but the written policy is that it's "frowned" upon and to me removal thereof looks suspicious. Anyway, some of the anon's edits were okay, but some were IMHO vandalism, certainly non proper encyclopedic terminology (like "ass", "balls", etc) and those could be removed without questions. If you get into an edit war, you also could be blocked. Try to use the talk page and if the other party violates 3RR (ie, a 4th revert), report to WP:ANI/3RR.

”

Thus, there was some vandalism, and the anon (though maybe not this person who responded) made 4 reverts to the warnings, so I reported them. --AW 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a more complete rendering of the discussion with emphasis added:

Please take the time to explain why you a reverting/edit warring with the IP over their contributions. Simply throwing wiki-jargon like "OR" at them isn't helpful (neither is edit warring). You too are close to violating the three-revert rule, so try something constructive and communicate with them. John Reaves (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My response is here. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that the other user has a right to remove warnings too and that communication is much better than warring. Sometimes a boilerplate template message doesn't have the same effect as a personal note. John Reaves (talk) 03:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course unsourced material can be removed, I'm just encouraging more communication. John Reaves (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

John makes some good points. Invalid warnings can be removed. Removal of valid warnings, well there's some disagreement there, but the written policy is that it's "frowned" upon and to me removal thereof looks suspicious. Anyway, some of the anon's edits were okay, but some were IMHO vandalism, certainly non proper encyclopedic terminology (like "ass", "balls", etc) and those could be removed without questions. If you get into an edit war, you also could be blocked. Try to use the talk page and if the other party violates 3RR (ie, a 4th revert), report to

WP:ANI/3RR. Rlevse

Awiseman has now added further warnings to the IP talk page and threatened blocking the IP - something a review of his aggressive editing of the IPs contributions will suggest he is interested in (dating to a conflict over the article for Georgetown University - a principal rival school of George Washington University which Awiseman's user page indicated he attends; and which he has continued removing content contributed by multiple other editors to the Georgetown article, minimizing Georgetown as much as possible). He has also now vandalized this IP's talk page by editing this editors own edits regarding the edit war with Robotman. I will refrain from further action there until this conflict may be resolved. I request that the reviewing admin note on my talk page how to seek a prohibitive action disallowing Awiseman from continuing to edit the talk page of the IP and/or the Georgetown article; an action for which I know a process is available, but I do not know how to begin it. 67.101.243.74 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I warned the user because they were removing warnings, using the tpv templates, and that's not vandalism. I do not attend George Washington University, and that has no bearing on this discussion. Here are the edits the IP user made which was why they were warned originally: [16], [17], [18]. To me, that's clear vandalism and warnings were valid. You can argue all you want, but the IP user made vandalistic edits, was warned, removed the warnings, and then I warned them for that. --AW 19:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I will let this be my last contribution to this discussion. I apologize if I was hasty in suggesting the user attended George Washington U.; in fact, his userpage indicates he is a "fan of George Washington University" sports teams and lives in Washington, DC, where the rivalry between the schools is pertinent. The fact remains that Awiseman has pursued repeated aggressive actions against edits contributed towards the promotion of Georgetown University. The warnings were for unsourced material and O.R., not vandalism, thus, the immediately previous argument is incorrect possibly with the intention to mislead the reviewing admin. The further fact remains that Awiseman baited this user at the IP into reverting a third time an issue that was seemingly resolved by two admins in which he was uninvolved and now vandalizing the IP's talk page by obscuring and editing within the edits of this user. It appears, IMHO, that Awiseman used the opportunity of the disagreement with Robotman1974 to pursue his desire to warn and/or block the IP. I ask again that the reviewing admin leave notice on my talk page of how I can request the prohibition(s) mentioned in my previous reply. 67.101.243.74 19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue was not resolved by other users - the IP made edits like "Booty shorts are similar except shape the ass around so that a girl can attract her man to her ass better. These are especially popular in the hiphop community and other high societies." - that's not just unsourced, it's a joke. This wasn't resolved by other users, you just bolded the comments that helped your side. The other users also said that "some were IMHO vandalism, certainly non proper encyclopedic terminology (like "ass", "balls", etc) and those could be removed without questions." I'm tired of having to debate about this and looking forward to hearing from an admin. --AW 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Robotman here. Here's how I responded to the IP user's complaints:

The reverts in question are here, here and here. Each time I removed content that was entirely unsourced and to my view constituted original research. As far as I understand the policies at

WP:OR, I was right to remove this content. As for the claims of edit warring, I hardly think these three reverts on this article can be called that. I need to ask John, do you really think my actions on this article amount to an edit war? If you don't, then please remove or strike out the statement you left on my talk page saying that I am edit warring. On to the issue of discussion with the user. The claim that I "will not respond to discussion page" is false. For the first revert, I left no message. For the second, I left the standard level 1 unsourced message. The user at 67.101.243.74 then left a level 1 deletion message on my talk page. I removed this warning as bogus because it is. To remove unsourced material and original research from an article is not a violation of policy, and is not a mistake or an action taken in bad faith. If you believe I shouldn't have removed this warning John, you're welcome to restore it to my talk page. The second message I left the IP user can be seen here, along with a restoration of the previous warning and a message not to remove legitimate warnings from talk pages. That was after I had removed the unsourced information (which now contained less text) for the third time. I don't believe any of this can be seriously called edit warring or refusal to communicate. If you think otherwise John, please let me know. I would also very much like to know if I have made any violations of Wikipedia policy in my actions. If so, and upon your request I can restore the bogus warning to my talk page, restore the unsourced material to the article or remove the warnings I left at User talk:67.101.243.74. Please let me know. Thanks. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴

03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for the quick reply. Point taken on that. What about the other questions I asked though? Was I wrong to remove that content? I ask because I frequently remove unsourced statements and original research from articles while I go through my watchlist. Is this the wrong thing to do? Should I stop? Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 03:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI. The outcome of this is meaningless to me, as I've stopped trying to help stop Wikipedia's inevitable descent into irretrievable chaos. Best of luck with your project, and happy editing. 66.222.227.42 20:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased Robotman1974 has added to this discussion. As before, the edit war was about unsourced and O.R. issues, not that they might also have been viewed as vandalism (although the admin who suggested that was careful to conclude that the language may have been "non proper encyclopedic terminology" rather than vandalism) and Awiseman baited users at this IP with the intention of starting this 3RR process. Awiseman was also completely disingenuous when he indicated he was not a George Washington University student (he states that he is an alum here:[19] and edits like [20] suggest, if he is actually an alum, he was a student as recently as the last academic year) seeking to better the image of G.W.U. at the expense of Georgetown (consider [21] and [22] in light of [23] and, completely unsourced, [24]), which, I contend, Awiseman's seeking punition against this IP -because Georgetown students edit from it- is really all about (Awiseman has previously sought conflict of interest mediation against editors based on that they made "edits, all of which relate to Georgetown University ... in a positive nature" see [25]; never availing himself of the same kind of conflict when countless times editing G.W.U. articles in a so-called "positive nature." 67.101.243.74 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts cited involve removal of warnings, which while for ips may be seen as borderline, I'm inclined not to take action (unless new issues arise; if they do, please let me know). El_C 00:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

- Ok, thanks. And just in response to the IP's continued insinuations, the Georgetown case went to COI and was considered "likely," and I've actually taken more out of GWU than I've added, advertising for groups and such, and brought that to COI as well. But hopefully this matter is closed. --AW 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Miketm reported by User:evrik
(Result:24 hours)

Miketm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

Previous version reverted to: 10:26, 20 March 2007

1st revert: 09:49, 4 April 2007
2nd revert: 10:48, 4 April 2007
3rd revert: 12:00, 4 April 2007
4th revert: 12:17, 4 April 2007

A diff of 3RR warning before this report was filed here.

Diff of 3RR warning: 12:13, 4 April 2007

Comments

A violation of
WP:Civil here

Repeated removal of a deletion tag
Edit warring at:
- Queen discography
- Fat Bottomed Girls

24 hours. El_C 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:BassxForte reported by User:Nique1287 (Result: 31 hours)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: [26]
1st revert: [27]
2nd revert: [28]
3rd revert: [29]
4th revert: [30]

Comments: Has been disruptive in the past on this issue (see Talk:Organization XIII#The Fight Against Roxas) and is currently being disruptive on the issue again (see User_talk:BassxForte#Organization_XIII.E2.80.8E and User_talk:Nique1287#Re:_Orginization_XIII for the discussion currently going on) Also, seems to think that writing the same thing instead of using the Edit or Undo feature quantifies not reverting.

31 hours. El_C 00:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:192.147.67.12 reported by User:Khoi khoi (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 23:48, 2 April 2007
1st revert: 22:57, 3 April 2007
2nd revert: 18:24, 4 April 2007
3rd revert: 18:54, 4 April 2007
4th revert: 19:30, 4 April 2007
5th revert: 20:14, 4 April 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 19:09, 4 April 2007

Comments

24 hours. El_C 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:John Smith's reported by User:Giovanni33 (Result: no action)

Three-revert rule

1st revert: [31] 12:43, 4 April 2007

2nd revert: [32] 18:12, 4 April 2007

3rd revert: [33] 18:46, 4 April 2007

4th revert: [34] 21:02, 4 April 2007

Comments

Probable Sockpuppety would make this 7 reverts total:

First User:John Smith's reverted three times, taking out a particular section that was added earlier by another editor[35]:

1st revert[36]
2nd revert[37]
3rd revert[38]

Then he declared he'll engage in a revert war[39]. And then an anon IP-editor appeared, taking out the same section that John Smith's kept taking out[40]. This anon IP has no other history. Even though a user check has been requested, here [41], my undestanding is that in cases were its very clear we one need not rely upon a user check to assume the obvious. In anycase, after the three confrimed reverts above (and 6 total reverts if we include the anon IP), he made a 4th revert while logged in.

When asked if he was the anon IP user he responded this way here: [42]

He is aware of the 3RR rule, warned repeatedly in the past, and has been blocked multiple times for this.

First of all the anon-user is in Hungary - how the hell am I supposed to use a sockpuppet that far away? So those three edits have nothing to do with me. Giovanni is making up stories to get me in trouble - he has made false reports about me in the past.

Second I have not reverted four times. I have reverted three times - the first revert is nothing of the sort - note that Giovanni has not indicated what it was I reverted to the first time. This is because he knows the first "revert" was nothing of the sort and is just trying to trick you. I made a series of edits to improve the page that had not been made before, so it cannot be a revert. John Smith's 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No action. Page protected. --Deskana (ya rly) 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

24 72 hours (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th; removes "highly"). Increasing block duration on account of hitherto 3RR breaches. El_C 23:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've unblocked User:John Smith's, as I'd protected the page. Otherwise the block would be simply punitive, which is not what blocking is for. Of course El C didn't block as a punishment, but that's all it'd be if the page was also protected. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  - In light of the user's past violations, I would have approached this differently, but I didn't notice this was alreayd being attended to, so I leave the case to Deskana's discretion. El_C 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with protecting this page again, esp. when it has been protected and its just one user. Moreover, this one user has violated 3RR, and shows no signs of not stopping. So he should be blocked to prevent the edit waring. Protecting the page is not the right thing to do in this situation.

I just left this message to Deskana to ask him to reconsider, and to unprotect this page because what we have now is not in the best interests of this article. I don't think Deskana has followed the talk page discussions, and thus is making a mistake in protecting the page again, as well as unblocking the one person who is violating 3RR, again, causing this. As I wrote to Deskana:

"...protecting the page again is unnecessary. There is only one editor who is edit waring with everyone else, and he has been blocked. During the last page protection we discussed the issue at lenght, and there is not much more to discuss. We are only repeating ourselves. He simply thinks that edit waring is an acceptable way to get what he wants, and has pleged to continue. Everone else on both sides of the fence have agreed to include this passage and only John Smith persists in edit waring over it--one person.

I think the correct method is for him to be told he must abide by consensus, or seek a Rfc, etc--not to edit war. Its not fair to keep the whole article hostage with a protection just because of one user, getting his way by breaking the 3RR rule. So, in light of his block, there will be no more edit warring now--and if he comes back and continues he can be warned and blocked again. Edit waring is not allowed. I understand protecting a when there are two groups of people and there needs to be discussion taking place, but this is not one of those situations. The discussion has taken place over and over and its just this one user."

Thanks.Giovanni33 00:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you should just drop this witch-hunt against me. We can actually discuss matters, rather than you insisting on having your way. As I have explained to El C in any case I did not break 3RR - the reverts he mentioned do not qualify. John Smith's 09:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would urge for more moderate language, John Smith. Also, I've not been privy to any such expalantion, to the best of my recollection. El_C 09:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

El C, as I explained on your talk page I e-mailed you - I'm hoping to hear from you at your convenience. John Smith's 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick reported by User:Gibnews(Result:No action)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: [43]
1st revert: [44]
2nd revert: [45]
3rd revert: [46]

Comments

I've invited him to discuss this but its unproductive, and he has removed the references to the UK FCO website which supports the original version.

It appears that we have apparently filed 3RR reports on each other simultaneously (see below). For the record the first edit I made was not a "revert", because I was changing something for the first time. I very conciously stopped after my 3rd revert, knowing that I had reached my 24 hour limit, although Gibnews proceeded to make 4. I'm also shocked to see the claim that I was "invited to discuss", because I posted on his talk page, and did not get a response until he'd reverted twice already. He then reverted again even after I had opened discussion on the matter on the talk page: he is still yet to contribute to the discussion there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR must involve more than 3 reverts; no action. El_C 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rarelibra reported by User:Pmanderson (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 14;32 April 4
1st revert: 18:10
2nd revert: 18:40
3rd revert: 18:57
- New basis: 21;19
4th revert: 21:52 (incomplete; did not revert link to Italian article, but completely reverted text at issue.)
- New basis: 22;39
5th revert: 23:15
6th revert: 23:32

Comment: I do think that this comment shows he needs to cool down. I've only edited the page three times myself (once intended to be an entirely novel solution), amd I think Ev should be cut some slack in dealing with this Revert Warrior. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a confusing report, but I can see at least four more obvious reverts. 24 hours. El_C 00:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gibnews reported by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 19:49, 3 April 2007
1st revert: 04:17, 4 April 2007
2nd revert: 13:17, 4 April 2007
3rd revert: 15:20, 4 April 2007
4th revert: 18:15, 4 April 2007

Comments: User refused to engage on his talk page when I posted there, and on the article talk page. Simply reverted it each time.

24 hours. El_C 00:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Cs reported by KazakhPol (Result:24 hours No action)

3RR on East Turkestan Liberation Organization immediately following the end of a 3RR block on that page. KazakhPol 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [47]
1st revert: [48]
2nd revert: [49]
3rd revert: [50]
4th revert: [51]

Removes mention of "designated as a terrorist organization" in all four reversions. Also repeatedly changes militant to secessionist. I was blocked four a week for three reversions. I would expect some sort of administrative action on his four reverts. KazakhPol 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. El_C 00:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked with apologies. KazakhPol is reminded to date his diffs and that this must be recent. El_C 13:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:AKMask reported by User:Nssdfdsfds
(Result:No action)

AKMask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The article makes a number of claims that the software Kazaa contains damaging malware. Such claims are clearly highly contentious and should be well-supported. I removed these claims, asking for them to be well-cited. The claims have been disputed in the talk page of the article since April 2006, by someone called Unchained, who appears to represent Kazaa. My change was reverted three times with no sourcess less than 3 years old (there is no doubt Kazaa had *spyware* in the past, and currently is *advertising* supported, but the precise nature of the current nasties should be carefully referenced, not just tossed in).

AKMask reverted a fourth time in breach of 3RR. The source this time was slightly newer, based on this [52] report of March 2006, but clearly the article is not being maintained with due attention to sourcing, as the 2006 source lists 7 programs, but the article lists 9 (such as new.net).

Clearly my action in removing the highly contentious and legally dubious content was correct. The four reverts made are unhelpful and damaging. The content should be removed and rewritten more carefully (e.g., "a March 2006 review of Kazaa 3.0 showed that it contained the following programs that could be classed as spyware or adware: ...."). But we shouldn't leave content that is inaccurate and clearly damaging to Kazaa up in the mean time. Nssdfdsfds 00:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Response: 3RR does not apply when reverting vandalism. The user unilaterally removed an entire section despite it having sources. When these were deemed 'too old' by the user above, I then reverted to the previous version, adding a source for 2006. That Kazaa has spyware is not a radical claim, in deed it is one commonly accepted by computer users everywhere, and I was sourceing it. -

M^ask?

I'm inclined to agree.
fact}} tag is added. No action (unless very persuasive arguments are brought forth), but please, everyone, stop the edit warring. El_C
01:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:IronDuke
(Result: 12 hours)

Previous version reverted to: 23:15, 2 April 2007
1st revert: 02:29, 4 April 2007
2nd revert: 06:28, 4 April 2007
3rd revert: 06:44, 4 April 2007
4th revert: 16:08, 4 April 2007 (removes sources from Freddy's incident)
5th revert: 18:07, 4 April 2007 (scroll down to see removal of death during Crown Heights riot)

12 hours for first offence. El_C 01:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments: User has removed some or all of the Crown Heights section on four occasions, and from the Freddy's Fashion Mart section on one occasion, against two other users. Not a a new user, but has been warned on talk page [53].
IronDuke
01:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ronz
(Result: 24hrs)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 20:09, 3 April 2007
1st revert: 23:40, 4 April 2007
2nd revert: 01:36, 5 April 2007
3rd revert: 01:48, 5 April 2007
4th revert: 03:05, 5 April 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 01:57, 5 April 2007

Comments

3RR on Mini-Z as well, but not warned yet.

Blocked for 24 hours. Crum375 04:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Alex Kov reported by User:128.227.51.157 (Result:8h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 05:49, 5 April 2007
1st revert: 06:54, 5 April 2007
2nd revert: 08:09, 5 April 2007
3rd revert: 08:21, 5 April 2007
4th revert: 08:36, 5 April 2007

Comments

This user is insisting that medieval refers to that timeframe all over the world rather than being confined to the what happened on the European content at the time (which is the consensus of Wikipedia, Websters, Brittanica, and Encarta). I made this known to the user and he claimed that all of these sources and Wikipedia are euro-centric. I also advised the user to discuss it on the Middle Ages page but the user insists on broadcasting their views on the main page. The editor has a history of edit warring and is likely not to let this go. 128.227.51.157 08:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits above are not reverts. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it not reversion? The user kept on changing the article title unilaterally with consensus against him as can be seen on the talk page. 128.227.143.184 15:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a random passerby here: The edits above are reverts; very simple one- or two-change edits which all reinserted the same section title change. I can't see how they can be called anything other than reverts. Woohookitty must have been looking at the wrong links or something. RedSpruce 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definitely reverts. The 3RR warninn came only after the fourth revert; however, the user had been warned not to edit war in the past. 8 hours. Heimstern Läufer 22:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:81.216.216.222 reported by User:RedSpruce (Result:no violation)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: [54]
1st revert: 13:20, 4 April 2007
2nd revert: 02:44, 5 April 2007
3rd revert: 05:43, 5 April 2007
4th revert: 10:34, 5 April 2007

Was warned on the Talk page with a link to

WP:3RR

. Ignoring consensus of 4 other editors.

Last revert doesn't seem to be a revert. Heimstern Läufer 03:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:TDC reported by User:Hashaw (Result:self-reverted)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: [55]
1st revert: 13:56 5 April 2007
2nd revert: 15:43 5 April 2007
3rd revert: 16:46 5 April 2007

Ignoring consensus of other editors.

Ummm, thats not a 3RR pal. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that as far as I have been able to determine TDC is under a one-revert-a-day-per-article probation - which appears to still be in effect? Any idea how many violations you've committed since then, and whether the block time should indeed be a year per article? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I honestly though my parole ended this month, it has been several month since I have reviewed the decision and mistakenly thought it was over as of the first of April. I will correct the Rv. After reviewing the decision again, I noticed that while both James and I are mentioned in the "Proposed remedies" only James' is listed under the "Proposed Enforcement". I realize that you have some "thing" for me, but this is really petty of you Ryan. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, edit warring is petty. I urge you to look at your elapsing probation not as license to engage in renewed edit warring and revert warring, but as a guideline for how to continue to conduct yourself (more 1RR than 3RR, more 'talk' page resolution). It's not petty and it's not personal to bring the community's attention to an existing ArbCom probation against your edit warring when you've been reported for 3RR. I'd also humbly suggest it's a lot more petty to wikilawyer around the dates and specific formatting of your probation, and leave it at that. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

TDC has self-reverted; no block unless edit warring continues. Heimstern Läufer 22:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Zachorious reported by User:FateClub (Result:no vio)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: [56]
1st revert: [57] April 2
2nd revert: [58] April 3
3rd revert: [59] April 3
4th revert: [60] April 4

Not within 24 hours. No violation. Heimstern Läufer 03:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rebyid reported by User:Italiavivi (Result:18h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 20:53, 5 April 2007
1st revert: 21:58, 5 April 2007
2nd revert: 23:22, 5 April 2007
3rd revert: 23:37, 5 April 2007
4th revert: 23:59, 5 April 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 23:28, 5 April 2007

Comments: This user is also referring to everyone else as "fascists" and "Obama staffers" on the article's Talk page. Italiavivi 00:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the page you will see that Italiavivi is the one who violated the rule. I put in a line that was cited from a valid source. And as you will see I even attempted to alter it to the satisfaction of others. But it was deleted 3 times by Italiavivi for no good reason. If you look at Italiavivi's edits on the Obama page you will see relentless censorship of anything that might reflect poorly on this candidate. I

I am actually glad this complaint was made. Hopefully you will take a look at the history of the Obama page and see how dissent has been utterly silenced to the point of even displacing or deleting controversial topics on the talk page(!). I used to the wikipedia was a place where differing voices could work together. But I see now that if enough people want to they can get together and silence a particular position.

If you don't beleive me just look at the Obama article. See how many things in that article might reflect poorly on him. Then look at how many proposals there were that were rejected by the same 3 or 4 users working together to keep that page "clean".

Blocked for 18 hours. Heimstern Läufer 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dean1970 reported by William M. Connolley 10:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 2007-04-05T21:24:04
2nd revert: 2007-04-05T22:08:37
3rd revert: 2007-04-05T23:10:21
4th revert: 2007-04-06T02:22:57

Previously warned but gave ambiguous reply: [61]

Can't see a 3RR offense here. The first item is the user's first edit on the page, apparently introducing new material, and William failed to provide the "previous version reverted to" link to show how it is a revert (quick browse through article history shows no indication it is one). Then there are two reverts, and a third edit that re-introduces similar but not identical material; thus we have something like two and a half reverts, not four. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. My apologies. Still I'm new here and can't be expected to know all the rules William M. Connolley 10:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you say that again, I'll send somebody to bite you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Um. Yeah. Nice try. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam reported by User:Ruud Koot (Result: 24 h)

Three-revert rule

violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

11:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 09:24, 26 December 2006
1st revert: 04:48, 5 April 2007
2nd revert: 01:40, 6 April 2007
3rd revert: 04:22, 6 April 2007
4th revert: 09:51, 6 April 2007

24h, see

User talk:Beh-nam. --Fut.Perf. ☼

User:Anyone7 reported by Raymond Arritt (Result: Warning)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:59, 5 April 2007

1st revert: 02:40, 6 April 2007
2nd revert: 15:00, 6 April 2007
3rd revert: 15:26, 6 April 2007
4th revert: 15:28, 6 April 2007

Comments: Has been persistently including this unsourced fringe material over a couple of days now.

Editor stopped after being warned, but has been warned that further edit wars will result in blocking. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that will be helpful. The GW-oriented pages are contentious enough without having to deal with stuff like this. Raymond Arritt 17:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:71.222.104.19 reported by User:Wimt (Result:31 hours for both IPs)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 13:16, 6 April 2007
1st revert: 13.34, 6 April 2007
2nd revert: 14.43, 6 April 2007
3rd revert: 14.47, 6 April 2007
4th revert: 14.57, 6 April 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 14.50, 6 April 2007

Comments

Now appears to have changed IP to User:75.164.141.19. See 15.40, 6 April 2007 and 15.44, 6 April 2007. Will (aka Wimt) 16:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This new IP also removed much of the content of the talk page. Will (aka Wimt) 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Emeraldher reported by User:FunkyFly (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 18:54, 4 April 2007
1st revert: 10:58, 6 April 2007
2nd revert: 11:09, 6 April 2007
3rd revert: 14:28, 6 April 2007
4th revert: 14:43, 6 April 2007

Comments

The user has been pushing ridiculous unsourced claims that the ethnic Macedonian cuisine is influenced by the Japanese cuisine, erasing Bulgarian influence in the process, and has been reverting against consensus. Note he changed his username from
User:Bonina. Was warned about the 3RR on his talkpage. /FunkyFly.talk_
18:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To the admins: you can consider the revert the removal of the "Bulgarian" four times within the last 24 hours. There was an edit war over the exact same thing they other day. Just clarifying...--
Domitius
18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Armyranger reported by User:After Midnight (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 18:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
1st revert: 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2nd revert: 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
3rd revert: 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
4th revert: 19:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
5th revert: 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Diff of 3RR warning: 19:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments: User is repeatedly changing Nationality of American to Ethnicity of Asian-American in multiple articles. Note that 3RR was also violated 3RR at
Cristy Thom and Kelly Hu following the warning. Please let me know if you want diffs for these also. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹
20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:R9tgokunks reported by User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise (Result: disruption block)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 4 April 02:10

1st revert: 6 April 20:41 (partial revert, adding back multiple irrelevant entries, such as
Austrian people, Swiss German
and others)

2nd revert: 6 April 21:17 (edit summary: "reverted vandalism by User:Andrwsc +layout tweaks")
3rd revert: 6 April, 21:22, randomly removing interwiki links (thus reverting several much earlier edits that added them, e.g. [62])
4th revert: 6 April 21:28, repeating removal of legitimate interwiki links

Comments

R9tgokunks has edit-warred on this page for many days, ignoring talkpage consensus in an article RfC. Note that he is also continuing longstanding revert-wars on multiple other articles (e.g. Alsace, Strasbourg), but I can't be bothered right now to check whether he's technically crossed 3RR there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

02:57, 7 April 2007 Gwernol (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "R9tgokunks (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (disruption)

User:Journalist reported by William M. Connolley 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (Result: user warned, page protected)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: [63]
1st revert: 2007-04-06T05:31:17
2nd revert: 2007-04-06T06:06:43
3rd revert: 2007-04-06T16:10:02 (nb marked rv)
4th revert: 2007-04-06T21:34:27 (inserting different tag but with essentially the same meaning)

Comments

OK, my second go of the day. At least I found a prev-version this time. I'm aware that the 4th is not exactly an rv of text, but I think it counts, since it re-inserts a dispute tagbox at the top William M. Connolley 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this report, as I can see there is ongoing duscussion and Journalist added a POV tag to inform about that. Actually removing that tag, when discussion is in progress, can be considered as a vandalism thus there is not 3RR break. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Curious, why is removing the tag considered vandalism? Global warming related articles are continually subject to discussion (often quite heated), so if I understand your reasoning they should perpetually wear a NPOV tag. Raymond Arritt 00:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they should perpetually wear NPOV tags if they perpetually violate NPOV. That's what the tags are for. If people were taking the concerns of others into consideration and stopped owning the articles (and/or bullying other editors), then this heated discussion probably would stop. As per User:Tulkolahten, I was simply notifying readers that not all editors were happy with the current version. But others, who believed that they owned the article, assumed bad faith and also classed my opinion as 'invalid'. Orane (talk • cont.) 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The article should not be tagged, because it does not violate NPOV. But more importantly, removal of a tag isn't vandalism. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not. 72.198.121.115 06:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the circumstances surrounding this dispute, I'm not sure that blocking Journalist would be the most productive action. He did not technically violate 3RR (although he may have in spirit). The page is now protected and Journalist has stopped. Hopefully productive talk page discussion will ensue. I've left a message on journalist's talk page. alphachimp 01:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I should add that the result of this report wasn't that Journalist was warned and the page protected; I protected the page because Journalist approached me about it. I have pointed out that the edit war was two-sided, and that William M. Connolley was at least as guilty of it (he carefully avoided a 3RR violation, but that's just gaming the system), but that I thought that blocking people was less productive than protexting the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mel Etitis (talk • contribs)

User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Michaelsanders (Result:page protected)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 20:01 6 April 2007
1st revert: 20:07 6 April 2007
2nd revert: 20:21 6 April 2007
3rd revert:23:01 6 April 2007
4 th revert:23:29 6 April 2007

Note:#User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Sandpiper (Result:48 hours) John Reaves (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor keeps removing information currently under discussion on talk page: his actions have no consensus, which thus far supports those he keeps reverting. He was blocked for 48 hrs until less than 24 hrs ago, for edit warring over the same information on the same page. Michael Sanders 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Wrong. Most of what User:Michaelsanders is saying is pure lie.

First I was reverting partly for template vandalism from User:Michaelsanders and User:Sandpiper (they kept removing a perfectly justified template they had no reason to remove, and of course they never provided any justification for it -> vandalism -> reverted). It can absolutely not be concidered as a "3RRV".

Second, it seems Michaelsanders is mistaken. In fact he doesn't seem to have checked the contents of the reverts...I merely reverted original research (synthesis of published material) with no source at all, which was only the contributor's own thoughts on the subject. My action have total consensus, because I'm merely following the rules banning original research from Wikipedia (please also note that absolutely no one had shown objection to the removal of this OR in the talk page of the article).

And finally, though it doesn't matter here, unlike Michaelsanders is saying, consensus is far from supporting "those I keep reverting". In fact, consensus is currently on my side.

Now I'd like to point out some things...User:Michaelsanders is know for creating agressive revert wars [64]

We can see that he has indeed been blocked [65] 3 times for edit warring, and that he nearly got a 4th block, just 2 days ago (we can also note that the last 2 -including the uncomplete one- concerned the

Horcrux

article.

In fact, we can notice that barely 2 weeks after having been blocked 48 hours for revert warring on

Horcrux, he continued to blindly revert, without any form of justification, indeed ignoring the admin's warning to "carefully consider your options and future conduct here" [66]

:

[67] ( 21:00, 29 March 2007)
[68] (19:10, 30 March 2007)
[69] (17:08, 31 March 2007)

Only 2 days after, he started another revert war:

[70] (17:15, 3 April 2007 )
[71] (18:37, 3 April 2007 )
[72] (18:52, 3 April 2007)

You might find interesting that he added in the talk page the following comment: "Rest assured that I will be putting the text back to the unmeddled version tomorrow at 18:16 precisely." [73], clearly being a threat of future edit war, and clearly showing his intention to ignore the principles of Wikipedia.

Then today (or yesterday), he did it again:

[74] ( 19:03, 6 April 2007)
[75] ( 19:13, 6 April 2007)

Surely, such a high consecutive number of reverts (including various threats of revert war), for someone who has already been blocked a total of 103 hours (not including the 4th block which was cancelled) for edit warring, is worrying. Moreover when his last reverts are mainly template vandalism. Folken de Fanel 00:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to protect the page since this seems to be a "hot" edit war that isn't going to calm down without protection. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you quite sure that this was not Folken's intent? Make as many edits as necessary to get the page locked to his version? Sandpiper 09:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, "making as many edits as necessary to get the page locked" is more your intent...Seeing the historic, every single edit another user "dared" to make to this article was almost immediately reverted with no reasons...

My only intent however, was to improve the article and make it respect the rules. Folken de Fanel 11:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Cooperglee reported by User:Wimt (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule

violation on

04:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 23.43, 6 April 2007

1st revert: 23.56, 6 April 2007
2nd revert: 23.59, 6 April 2007
3rd revert: 00.07, 7 April 2007
4th revert: 00.21, 7 April 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 00.20, 7 April 2007

Comments

I also asked the user to perform a self revert because he was in violation of the 3RR, but he did not. He appears to be replacing the article with information about himself. Will (aka Wimt) 00:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

24H block. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Kevin Murray reported by User:badlydrawnjeff (Result:24H)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: [76]
1st revert: [77]
2nd revert: [78]
3rd revert: [79]
4th revert: [80]
5th revert: [81]

Comments

Forcing addition of template to all policy pages, up against the wall on a number of other pages as well, and has also broken 3RR at [WP:PORNBIO http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_%28pornographic_actors%29&action=history] (which I had as well, but self-revertede). Being bold is one thing, continuing after the reversion and after requests to stop is another. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment both Jeff and Kevin have done multiple (three or more) reverts. Both are excellent editors and valued contributors. The bone of contention is the "primary notability criterion" per {{pnc}}. I do not see why any editor would object to this. Edison 04:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the wording and everything to do with simple respect of other editors and respect of

consensus, a core foundation of the project. Regardless, the back-and-forth here is unnecessary, and I request a resolution to this. --badlydrawnjeff talk

24 hour block. Pretty clear violation. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Priscila.amescua reported by User:Ronbo76 (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 18:48, April 6, 2007
2nd revert: 18:49, April 6, 2007
3rd revert: 18:50, April 6, 2007
4th revert: 18:52, April 6, 2007

Comments - User was issued a 3RR message along with delete level four message. Ronbo76 03:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24H for continually blanking pages.

User:vivaldi
(Result: 3 days)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 10:51, 18 March 2007
1st revert: 15:25, 6 April 2007
2nd revert: 21:57, 6 April 2007
3rd revert: 22:09, 6 April 2007
4th revert: 22:13, 6 April 2007

Comments

I don't see more than 3 reverts. What's listed as the first revert is just an edit it looks like. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Woohookitty, but you made a mistake. Look again at the facts. The first revert admits in the edit summary that it is a revert. It says, "Please do not revert the justified edits of others without consideration or discussion. I am removing again an inappropriate POV, Scientologist "outing site"". The emphasis on "removing again" is mine. The person reverted the edit that user Cleduc made on 15:22, 6 April 2007 which itself was a revert on another undiscussed removal of information by Church of Scientology

Vivaldi (talk

) 07:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Vivaldi seems to be right about this, and additionally Justanother made yet another revert not yet listed here ([82]), so the case is clear now anyway. 3 days for repeat offense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. Even admins can be dumb. :) Sorry for the oversight. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Domitius
(Result: Page protected)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 14:29, 6 April 2007
1st revert: 21:19, 6 April 2007
2nd revert: 21:31, 6 April 2007
3rd revert: 22:48, 6 April 2007
4th revert: 08:32, 7 April 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 22:57, 6 April 2007

Comments:

The revert is removing the Greek and Serbian names from the lead; he did it four times. It's POV pushing, how can two translations of a medieval individual active in areas where those languages were spoken be "irrelevant" and "propaganda". It was reverted by multiple users, including two admins, but he persisted.--
Domitius
09:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a hars Edit-Rv War in this article.
User:Domitius is also in one side in this war without looking consensus in related talk. I think it will be better to protect the article for a temporary time.Must.^T ^C
10:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit war is beyond what issuing a single block is going to stop, so I've protected the page. I strongly encourage everyone involved to talk it out or seek

dispute resolution. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Sbloemeke and User:Zatchbellfan reported by Masamage (Result:Warned)

Just look at the history of Image:SailorMoonEpisode91.jpg. These are both fairly new users, so I'm betting they're unaware of the rule, but that is a total mess. They need at least a stiff warning and I'm not comfortable giving it. --Masamage ♫ 19:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:David Spart reported by User:GGreeneVa (Result:48 hours)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 17:32 31 Mar 2007
1st revert: 21:55, 31 March 2007
2nd revert: 10:15, 1 April 2007
3rd revert: 17:28, 1 April 2007
4th revert: 00:38, 2 April 2007
5th revert: 11:13, 2 April 2007
6th revert: 21:14, 2 April 2007
7th revert: 02:21, 5 April 2007
8th revert: 05:04, 5 April 2007
9th revert: 14:07, 5 April 2007
10th revert: 07:21, 6 April 2007
11th revert: 15:38, 6 April 2007
12th revert: 01:47, 7 April 2007

Comments: User engaging in repeated pattern of editing up to, but not beyond, three rv's w/in close or consecutive 24-hour periods. Has refused to acknowledge consensus or accept arguments against his edits on talk page. —GGreeneVa 19:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rocketfairy reported by User:Ernham (Result:No action)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Eisenhower and German POWs. Rocketfairy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

Previous version reverted to: [83]

1st revert: [84]
2nd revert: [85]
3rd revert: [86]
4th revert: [87]
5th revert: [88]

Comments

Despite Rocketfairy being the first to violate the 3RR, Rocketfairy went as far as to warn me that *I* had also violated it, so Rocketfairy is by no means ignorant of the rule and that Rocketfairy had his nose in the history and to have seen that Rocketfairy was also in repeated violation. I had personally forgotten about our edit exchange the day prior so was unaware I had went over the 3RR, so I reverted back to his version and instructed Rocketfairy do likewise on both edit history and his talk page. Rocketfairy has not complied.

Please note that Ernham has been reported for disruptive behaviour at [89]. He has repeatedly been involved in edit wars in almost all articles he contributes to, and has just returned from a ban a few days ago. It's clear from reading the discussion of the article in question that no action should be taken against User: Rocketfairy, rather against Ernham, who is ignoring community consensus :) Greenman 12:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In my humble opinon, edit warring over tags is especially pointless, even more so than article content. However, if the edit war is over a "pov" tag, the editor reintroducing the tag is usually, in essence, correct. That doesn't imply that any form of edit warring should be encouraged, of course. That said, I would respectfully suggest not blocking anyone for this minor debacle.

Addhoc

13:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If User:Ernham had filled out this report correctly he would have added the times of the diffs and would thus clearly see User:Rocketfairy's 1st revert was 6 April 03.55 and his 3rd revert was 6 April 04.14. What Ernham describes as the fourth, i.e. 3RR violating edit was 7 April 21.49, i.e. over 24 hours. Having said that both Rocketfairy and Ernham showed particular lack of restraint in performing so many reversions over a two day period. Mark83 13:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my lack of restraint and misreading of the rule here. Honestly, I'd never been in an editing dispute that required administrative intervention before; in the future I'll try to respond more appropriately. Thanks -- --Rocketfairy 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Privacy reported by User:Ideogram (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 13:53, 7 April 2007
1st revert: 15:37, 7 April 2007
2nd revert: 15:47, 7 April 2007
3rd revert: 16:21, 7 April 2007
4th revert: 22:52, 7 April 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 16:22, 7 April 2007

Edit warring over whether Education in Taiwan belongs in Category:Education in Taiwan or Category:Education in the Republic of China. --Ideogram 00:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre edit warring, 3RR violations, describing other users' edits as vandalism: 24h. yandman 09:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Calton reported by User:Orangemonster2k1 (Result: no violation)

Three-revert rule

violation on

01:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Prior Acts: [90]
1st revert: [91] - 22:26, April 6, 2007
2nd revert: [92] - 01:53, April 7, 2007
3rd revert: [93] - 15:44, April 7, 2007
4th revert: [94] - 00:18, April 8, 2007

User:Calton keeps reverting something that is within the rules of Wikipedia and it has turned into a "pissing" match with him. This is not acceptable behaviour for a seasoned Wikipedia editor. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 00:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Prior Acts by nominator:
User:Orangemonster2k1 reported by User:Calton (Result:_24_hours)

As the nominator still doesn't understand the 3RR, I've added the times he left off of his report. Nominator also doesn't understand

WP:CITE: the latter because removed the {{Unreferenced}} tag, despite the fact that the article is essentially unsourced. --Calton | Talk

Yeah, I was banned for 24 hours, but this is not about me. It is about

Stoopid Monkey page 4 times, plus 3 others before a block on the page was put in place. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil}

) 01:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Bucky, you brought up the "Prior acts", not me -- a "Prior act" that seems more vindication than condemnation to me -- so it's fair game. But speaking of current actions, I'll note that you have, in fact, reverted 4 times -- within 24 hours -- yourself. What's your excuse here?

19:11, April 7, 2007 (hist) (diff) Stoopid Monkey [95]

02:13, April 7, 2007 (hist) (diff) Stoopid Monkey [96]
00:13, April 7, 2007 (hist) (diff) Stoopid Monkey [97]
21:59, April 6, 2007 (hist) (diff) Stoopid Monkey [98]

--Calton | Talk 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thought you would try that. You 4th example was my adding the references, that was not a revert. Try again. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Guy, it's a readdition of exactly the same list, only with the (not-a-reliable-source) fanwiki URLs attached: see this comparison. It's a reversion. --Calton | Talk 04:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like a second opinion on this from another admin as I have clearly documented 4 reverts by User:Calton. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 02:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll offer my opinion, there is no violation because the 4 edits lie outside a 24-hour window. Metros232 03:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to drop this and find a peaceful way to

resolve your dispute—one that doesn't involve edit warring. I've already explained this on your talk page, Orangemonster2k1. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:128.227.51.157 reported by User:Alex Kov (Result: no block)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: [99]
2nd revert: [100]
3rd revert: [101]

Comments

User:128.227.51.157 reverted article 3 times insisting that term "medieval" refers only to European history. His reverts were made in non-neutral euro-centric manner, despite the the Asian or African schoolars do use the term "mediaval" in their national histories. He spreads non-neutral views in Wikipedia and call for administrators to block those who doesnt share his views.--Alex Kov 11:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You are aware that it has to be four reversions to break the 3RR rule and this happened over 24 hours ago. Seem to me this is only a revenge entry for

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Alex_Kov_reported_by_User:128.227.51.157_.28Result:8h.29. 128.227.11.151

17:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No block. You need more than 3 reverts in 24 hours for it to be a violation. Khoi khoi 04:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Sandpiper (Result: No action, warning)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 18:18 7 April 2007
1st revert: 23:51 7 April 2007

2nd revert: 00:15 8 April 2007

3rd revert:00:24 8 April 2007
4 th revert:11:37 8 April 2007

User has been warned previously about 3RR and banned for violation of 3RR on

Horcrux

.

Please be serious. This noticeboard is for users making 4 or more consecutives reverts with only a few minutes of interval, meaning that they don't even try to discuss edits and don't give time to discuss them...

Obviously my 4th revert was 12 hours after the last, there was all the time needed for discussion and there was discussion.

Now obviously your jumping on every single opportunity to get me banned just out of spite, and be sure your utterly ridiculous "report" will be concidered merely as a chidlish attack.

Also, they will certainly be interested in the fact that Sandpiper is continually involved in revert war on

Horcrux and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows...Folken de Fanel

13:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel persists in breaking the 3RR rules, refusing to properly discuss issues even when more than one editor disagrees with him. In this case, he has the Point of View that a published book is not an acceptable source, and so ignored the rules in order to remove it: despite having no support, and two editors against him. He repeatedly flouts the rules to suit himself.Michael Sanders 15:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Michaelsanders persists in spreading lies about me, just because he doesn't accepts that someone would not agree with him. He has violated the 3RR rule several times resulting in a total time of 103 hours of block for 3RRV and edit warring, and is known among contributors for creating agressive revert wars [102].

User:Michaelsanders systematically refuses to properly discuss issues, only replying with racial insults [103] and nether commenting upon the actual matter.

That 2 users disagree with me, while being totally unable to prove their point, doesn't mean they have won the debate and can impose their views while totally blocking the article from further edits, using revert wars and threats of reverts [104]. And indeed, since

Wikipedia is not a democracy

, that 2 users systematically team up against one to obtain an artificial 6 consecutive reverts permission, without even trying to discuss the matter, isn't a proof they are "right". The use of brute force, without discussion, to artificially block any article from being edited, is not supported anywhere by Wikipedia, and while there is not stricly 3RR violation, teaming up in order to game 3RR and to provoke edit wars, as a mean to avoid discussing, should be treated as a 3RR vio.

User:Michaelsanders is using this notice board only to attack me and to "get even" with me, while avoiding to reply to my comments when I'm discussing the content of the articles in the talk pages. This article is not for users to develop their personal problems with others.

User:Michaelsanders is again lying about the circumstances of the edit war he created: there is a CONSENSUS in the talk page of the article in order not to accept certain dubious sources in the article, however Michaelsanders is ignoring the consensus, and instead of discussing it he merely reverts, and he merely replies with racial insults when I try to initiate a debate on his talk page. Folken de Fanel 16:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The user did indeed violate the 3RR, but has not edited at all on that page in more than 2 days, and the content beign removed by the reverts is now in the article. Since blocks are suppsoed to be preventative, not punitive, the time for action on this violatiuon has passed, But I am going to strongly warn the user and everyone on the article's talk page. DES ^(talk) 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Omegalion reported by User:RJASE1 (Result:no action)

Evasion of 24-hour 3RR block by editing as an IP on Personal branding. Omegalion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Omegalion. The checkuser report contains the diffs of the edits made and confirms this is the same person.

He has been using one of those IP's today, but has not edited since I've left a message on the talk page for that IP regarding a possible block for evasion. I suggest blocking if he resumes editing under any IP (it's quite easy to spot, especially now that CU has confirmed the range) before the original block would have ended. --Joanne B 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

He edited as one of the IPs by vandalizing the talk page of the article. RJASE1 ^Talk 12:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Hasn't edited since warnings and such. Any edits will result in blocking. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:71.217.37.229 reported by User:Klptyzm (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: [105]
2nd revert: [106]
3rd revert: [107]
4th revert: [108]

Comments: After receiving his warning after his 3rd revert and after my suggestion to start a discussion about the information he added, he told me to go "suck a dic," without, at all, considering my suggestion. Probably gonna make more attacks, as well.

Blocked for 24 hours - Alison^☺ 17:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Toa Mario reported by User:Ronbo76
(Result:48 hrs)

Toa Mario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: DIFFS DIFFTIME Revision as of 09:14, April 8, 2007
2nd revert: DIFFS DIFFTIME Revision as of 10:38, April 8, 2007
3rd revert: DIFFS DIFFTIME Revision as of 10:57, April 8, 2007
4th revert: DIFFS DIFFTIME Revision as of 11:01, April 8, 2007

Comments: Several other editors have tried to advise this user that the article's birthdate is disputed. One user,
Toa Mario's talkpage (see diff. Ronbo76
19:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment This user is also edit-warring on Bionicle Heroes, repeatedly replacing Image:29472 jaqr bionicleheroesps2-1-.jpg with the lower-quality Image:Bhwii.jpg, apparently because the later image shows the Wii version instead of the PS2 version. (The article covers both versions, and I can see no reason to use the lower-quality picture. I've nominated it for deletion as an obsolete fair use image.) He's used up his three reverts on that page: [109], [110], and [111]. If he does any more, he should be blocked. I've advised him on his Talk page of the 3RR. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

See report below for action taken.

User:Toa Mario reported by User:Crotalus horridus
(Result:48 hrs)

Toa Mario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

Previous version reverted to: [112]
1st revert: 19:19, 8 April 2007
2nd revert: 19:42, 8 April 2007
3rd revert: 19:46, 8 April 2007
4th revert: 19:56, 8 April 2007
Diff of 3RR warning: 19:48, 8 April 2007

Comments: Violated 3RR after warning. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

See section below -- duplicate report was filed. DES ^(talk) 18:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Yaksar reported by User:DLand (Result:48h)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 7 April 2007
2nd revert: 8 April 2007
3rd revert: 8 April 2007
4th revert: 8 April 2007
5th revert: 8 April 2007
6th revert (after warning): 8 April 2007

Warning: [113]
Reversion of warning: [114]

Comments: User has been repeatedly reverting without gaining consensus on the talk page. I warned him and he reverted the warning and promptly reverted again.

User:Toa Mario reported by User:DESiegel
(Result:Blocked 48 hours)

Toa Mario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

Previous version reverted to: 00:35, 8 April 2007 EDT
1st revert: 12:14, 8 April 2007 EDT
2nd revert: 13:38, 8 April 2007 EDT
3rd revert: 13:57, 8 April 2007 EDT
4th revert: 14:01, 8 April 2007 EDT
5th revert: 14:18, 8 April 2007 EDT
6th revert: 14:24, 8 April 2007 EDT
7th revert: 14:32, 8 April 2007 EDT
8th revert: 14:32, 8 April 2007 EDT

Three-revert rule

violation on

Toa Mario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

00:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 14:14, 8 April 2007 EDT
1st revert: 14:19, 8 April 2007 EDT
2nd revert: 14:42, 8 April 2007 EDT
3rd revert: 14:46, 8 April 2007 EDT
4th revert: 14:56, 8 April 2007 EDT
5th revert: 15:25, 8 April 2007 EDT
6th revert: 15:37, 8 April 2007 EDT

Warnings:

Note that the latest revert has the edit summary: "even if i did violate 3RR, thats no reason to revert it. Wii box art- newer. better. final box art" showing that the user was well aware of the 3RR by this time. DES ^(talk) 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

After this user created multiple sock puppets to continue reverting, I blocked for 48 hours. See report on

WP:AN/I. DES ^(talk)

User:Johnbod reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: Incomplete)

Three-revert rule

violation on

17:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: DIFFTIME
2nd revert: DIFFTIME
3rd revert: DIFFTIME
4th revert: DIFFTIME

Comments: The article was stable until Johnbod included contradictory material from a source from 1935. After he ignored my request to provide direct quotes I initiated a compromise solution on his comment that "I perfectluy agree that printing on cloth is less significant than printing text on paper, but the "printing" at the top of the article is not specified" (see
Talk:Four Great Inventions of ancient China), but he reinstated the same material again for the third or fourth time. Regards Gun Powder Ma
03:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the specified format, and provide diffs of the reverts. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: User:Gun Powder Ma is a persistent edit-warrior on a number of pages - and is reported twice on the current version of this page[115] and [116], and his edits tonight to Johannes Gutenberg, against a clear talk-page consensus for the millionth time, also breach 3RR [117] . My material is referenced to what remains the standard work, 1935 or not (still in print from Dover Books & still referenced at the top of all bibliographies of the subject). My edits covered several very different versions of the passages in question, and brought in new references as he requested - which were of course reverted. If they are reverts, then he has also reverted the page about 8 times tonight. The current version of the page was last edited by him, and I am happy with it. Johnbod 04:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDon reported by User:Jkelly (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 15:29, April 8, 2007
1st revert: 15:35, April 8, 2007
2nd revert: 19:42, April 8, 2007
3rd revert: 21:10, April 8, 2007
4th revert: 21:14, April 8, 2007

Comment User has been blocked for 3RR violations before. Jkelly 04:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:165.123.196.76 reported by User:Ward3001 (Result:24 hrs for both 165.123.196.76 and User:Thenewgeneration)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 03:57, 9 April 2007
2nd revert: 03:52, 9 April 2007
3rd revert: 03:51, 9 April 2007
4th revert: 03:45, 9 April 2007

Comment 14 more reverts to same article after these.

Diff of 3RR warning: [http:// http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A165.123.196.76&diff=121352359&oldid=121347960 04:49, 9 April 2007] Ward3001 05:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Both both User:165.123.196.76 and User:Thenewgeneration were well over the 3RR. I have blocked both for 24 hrs. DES ^(talk) 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Virgil Vaduva reported by User:Whispering (Result: no violation, see other entry)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 22:42, 8 April 2007
2nd revert: 19:00, 8 April 2007
3rd revert: 16:51, 8 April 2007

Comments: There is a slow revert war going on.

No violation. Only 3 reverts, did not violate 3RR. If it continues, there may be one in spirit
^{On Belay!}
03:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Virgil Vaduva reported by User:Gump (Result: no violation, see other entry)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 22:42, 8 April 2007
2nd revert: 19:00, 8 April 2007
3rd revert: 16:51, 8 April 2007

Comments: User Virgil Vaduva continues to revert all criticism to his views, and is now leaving moral slander on my walls. Please stop this madman.

User:Gump reported by User:Whispering (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 07:43, 9 April 2007
2nd revert: 10:13, 9 April 2007
3rd revert: 10:32, 9 April 2007
4th revert: 10:39, 9 April 2007

Comments: User:Gump seems to of copied over my report of him when he reported User:Virgil Vaduva so I have replaced it.

User:Yakuman reported by User:151.151.73.163 (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 20:44, 5 April
1st revert: 07:27, 8 April
2nd revert: 23:16, 8 April
3rd revert: 02:02, 9 April
4th revert: 16:25, 9 April
5th revert 17:39, 9 April
6th revert: 17:53, 9 April
7th revert: 06:11, 10 April

Comments

Yakuman has been edit warring over this for 6 days, and seems to be gaming the system by going right up to 3rr limit previous times. Yakuman claims on the template talk page that 3RR does not apply to this template [118] because its use it on bios violates "BLP" even though sources are provided supporting its inclusion which he ignores and dismisses. 151.151.21.105 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:LIVING. FYI, 3RR does not apply to poorly-sourced material about living persons. See also discussion and my requests for cites on the talk page. Yakuman (数え役満) 17:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

FM provided sources [119], stop pretending like he didn't. 151.151.21.105 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that the editor has been invoking BLP, but is changing the name and layout of the template. Guettarda 18:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The root of this is that unsourced and false claims were re-introduced, even after I repeatedly asked for cites and provided primary source that disputes them. These are living people, whether or not we like them. In addition, much of the reverts to the disputed version are by IPusers, who are likely sockpuppets. Yakuman (数え役満) 18:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources have been provided,= [120] you simply choose to ignore them. 151.151.21.105 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked specific questions about living people that went unanswered; these need specific cites. Yakuman (数え役満) 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

While such references were provided ("I can't be bothered to read them" isn't a valid objection) the main point is that Yakuman was claiming that his changes to the name and layout of the template were covered by BLP. Guettarda 18:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The name of the cleaned-up template is the same as the disputed one: "Dominionism". Charges in layout are ephemeral. The core issues involve poorly-sourced material about living persons; 3RR does not apply. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources have been provided for the people you insist on deleting from the template, and there's nothing stopping you from finding any sources that are missing, other than your personal bias toward the topic, I mean. 151.151.21.105 19:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You still reverted the 3rr by changing the template's name and structure. The name change is significant, since you are part of an ongoing dispute in that regard. BLP does not apply to content disputes over the name of a template. Guettarda 19:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the name, I reverted my own revert anyway; no harm, no foul. Again, no sources were provided to answer specific questions. I got a bunch of links -- with no quotes or explicit citations to substantiate multiple fact claims about living people. And 3RR does not apply to poorly-sourced material about living persons. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You only self-reverted 25% of your changes, the other 75% you left in, and specific sources [121] were provided satisfying any BLP fears of unsourced material. Stop pretending they were not. 151.151.73.167 19:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, there were no quotes or explicit citations to substantiate multiple fact claims about living people. And 3RR does not apply to poorly-sourced material about living persons, I'm on solid ground here. Yakuman (数え役満) 20:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

False. The material was sourced, and your content edits are clear 3RR vios. 72.198.121.115 14:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP but any BLP issues arise when the tmeplate is placed on the article of a person, not in its name, layout , formamting, or content, all of which he reverted multiple times. DES ^(talk)

User:82.114.71.5 reported by User:FunkyFly (Result: indef)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 02:54, 9 April 2007
1st revert 04:09, 9 April 2007
2nd revert: 10:50, 9 April 2007
3rd revert: 13:35, 9 April 2007
4th revert: 13:38, 9 April 2007
5th revert: 14:08, 9 April 2007

Comments

Note his edit to the admin's noticeboard and his personal attacks on his talkpage. /FunkyFly.talk_ 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I warned them that removing sourced info means vandalism. He kept reverting me, erasing valid sourced text.--82.114.71.5 18:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef. as an open proxy, the IP was Bonaparte anyways. Khoi khoi 03:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee
(Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule

violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 03:40, 9 April 2007
1st revert: 04:20, 9 April 2007
2nd revert: 16:22, 9 April 2007
3rd revert: 18:20, 9 April 2007
4th revert: 18:25, 9 April 2007

Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 18:33, 9 April 2007

Comments

The

Smee

18:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

WP:VANDAL

. Smee does not like that I try to prevent further vandalism under the cloak of "information" and - see above - tries to smear me even further. The bottom line is, that I agree that I should have kept an eye on 3RR - i.e. it is not ok to do that - and will keep an eye on that with any further edits.

COFS

18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I might add that there was no 3RR warning by anybody before this report. I take it as another example of "special" treatment against those not conform with the ideology of the Smee's and Tilman's here.

COFS

18:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see diffs and comments above RE: violations of 3RR, and personal attacks. The diffs speak for themselves with regard to this user's inappropriate behaviour.

Smee

18:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

The User was also blocked previously by

Smee

18:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

The personal attacks must stop. I have witnessed elsewhere in another wikipedia that such attacks result in counter attacks, and at the end, some discussion spaces become a hell where everyone is just frustrated. --Tilman 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

politely discuss differing views on talk pages as needed. DES ^(talk)

There may be other issues here as well, but the 3RR violation is clear. 24 Hour block. DES ^(talk) 19:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Alaexis reported by User:MariusM (Result: no action)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 8 apr 20:10
1st revert: 8 apr 20:13
2nd revert: 9 apr 04:12
3rd revert: 9 apr 15:46
4th revert: 9 apr 16:13

Diff of 3RR warning: Not a new user

Comments

Oldid of version reverted to is wrong, but it's not too hard to find the right one: [122]. I'm a bit reluctant to block without the user being warned, however, as I see no clear evidence he/she was aware of the 3RR. If another admin feels it's merited, go ahead and block, though. Heimstern Läufer 04:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
User was already forgiven for a 3RR violation few days ago [123]
The 1st, 3rd and 4th diffs are not identical. I modified the first sentences (the ones in dispute) taking into account what had been written on the talkpage and in the others' edit summaries. As the others behaved in a similar way I don't think it could be qualified as an edit war. After all the matters about the first two sentences were solved by the following edit by User:Lexicon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transnistria&diff=121449623&oldid=121448082 which seemed to fit both parties. Alaexis 13:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually the Transnitria page is already protected. Alaexis 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No action, not warned. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dúnadan
(Result:24 hours)

Besides his insults and lack of etiquette (and he has been reported and warned see:

Talk:Valencia (autonomous community)

).

Previous version reverted to
1st revert: 19:38 8 Apr
2nd revert: 22:23 8 Apr
3rd revert: 00:29 9 Apr
4th revert: 19:16 9 Apr
3RR warning (for a previous incident: result was a suspended 24h block)

Comments: This user is also on the
admins noticeboard for his reiterated insults and lack of etiquette. --the Dúnadan
21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

5 edits in 48 hours... You must be kidding Dunadan... --Maurice27 21:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

edited to remove one revert (12:36 7 Apr). Physchim62 (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Logologist reported by User:Matthead (Result:12 hours each)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 06:06, 7 April 2007
1st revert: 09:39, 8 April 2007
2nd revert: 23:35, 8 April 2007
3rd revert: 04:44, 9 April 2007
4th revert: 07:53, 9 April 2007

Comments: Logologist has been confirmed as sock puppeteer last year (
O
02:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Logologist having used socks once is as relevant as Matthead being convicted of 3RR once. In this case, we should consider several things: 1) Logologist created this impressive article; Matthead only contribution was to insert POVed unreferenced claims into into it (claim that Krakau is more correct fails WP:NCNG 2) Matthead has been incivil in edit summaries (like here). As far as I see it, it's Matthead's behaviour which is unacceptable here; although I'd support warning Logologist about 3RR considering it's his first (technical - 22,5h, 2 'daylight' days) violation.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

- I am taking neither Logologist's socks nor Matthead's previous 3RR block into account here, as both are quite a ways in the past. Also not taking into account the fact that Logologist created the article, as no one
  owns articles. As for the civility issues: both sides have been incivil. Here's the critical point: The effect of this edit is to revert Logologist's edit of 19 March, which, combined with three other clearly marked reverts, is also a violation of the three-revert rule. Therefore, both users are blocked for twelve hours. Heimstern Läufer
  04:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  - Sounds reasonable. Hopefully they will learn to solve their problems another way...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Trexfan87 reported by User:Wgungfu (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule

violation on Pac-Man. Trexfan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: | 20:32, 9 April 2007
1st revert: 21:02, 8 April 2007
2nd revert: 16:50, 9 April 2007
3rd revert: 20:32, 9 April 2007
4th revert: 21:50, 9 April 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: | 20:48, 9 April 2007

Comments: User was warned about pending 3RR violation if he chose to revert a fourth time. Chose to remove warning from his talk page and turn right around and revert the Pac-Man page again. He also removed the administrator's protection of the page.

Please provide diffs, not oldids. Heimstern Läufer 05:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

oldids? Not sure what you're asking for, but I'll be happy to provide if you clarify. Likewise, he just edited out this entire entry from this page. That's permissible? --Marty Goldberg 07:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Martin taleski reported by User:FunkyFly (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 14:57, 8 April 2007
1st revert: 22:37, 9 April 2007
2nd revert: 22:46, 9 April 2007
3rd revert: 22:49, 9 April 2007
4th revert: 22:59, 9 April 2007

Comments

Warned on his talk. Note this comment. /FunkyFly.talk_ 03:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

24 hours. Khoi khoi 03:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Vlad fedorov reported by User:Piotrus (Result:24h)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 00:19, April 10, 2007

Note: 6RR, not counting 3 other reverts from a previous day (I got tired posting diffs...). User warned about 3RR rule; warning removed from talk page. Also note highly uncivil edit summaries in recent contribs and very high percentage of reverts overall (user is waging a revert war on several pages nearly constantly in the past days). Update: user also up to 4RR or more on this article...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer 05:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Kingjeff reported by User:121.44.226.60 (Result:no violation/action)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 03:51, 8 April 2007
1st revert: 22:03, 8 April 2007
2nd revert: 22:12, 8 April 2007
3rd revert: 22:18, 8 April 2007
4th revert: 22:20, 8 April 2007
5th revert: 22:24, 8 April 2007

Comments

Edit warring continues without any discussions on the talk page. And for the user, it seems like a habit of violating the 3RR Rule, check his block log for futher details.
This is
sock puppetry. Kingjeff
14:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:121.44.226.60 is now a suspected sock puppet. He has been reported here. This is based on suspicion of the comment made here. Kingjeff 14:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This seems borderline to me. I'm ready to throw this out as a case of reverting a block-evading sockpuppet, but I'd like to see conclusion of the checkuser first. In the future, I'd recommend doing that before you break 3RR, so you know for certain that you're in the clear. At this point, I'm reserving my decision until I see what checkuser finds. If any other admin has a different opinion, feel free to proceed as you see fit. Kafziel ^Talk 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
No action taken It's borderline if it's even a 3RR violation due to the vandalism reversion clause. Even as such, the user felt he was within policy. Assuming good faith, no need for a block. I agree with Kafziel. Closing as No action/violation
^{On Belay!}
03:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Orderinchaos
(Result: no action)

Three-revert rule

violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

Previous version reverted to: 08:44, 10 April 2007
1st revert: 09:07 UTC
2nd revert: 09:16 UTC
3rd revert: 09:19 UTC

Comments: reached 3 reverts not just in 24 hours, but in barely 14 minutes. I ask that a neutral admin review this matter - I am obviously unable to act as I am a party in the dispute. The background can be found on the talk page of the article, and also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Australian general election campaign, 2005.; Looks like the user did not pass the 3RR. And I also see some constructive edits unless I'm missing something. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Vsmith reported by User:Iceage77 (Result:Page protected)

Three-revert rule

1st revert: [124]
2nd revert: [125]
3rd revert: [126]
4th revert: [127]

Comments: 4 reverts within 1 hour, all reinserting a POV edit about fake graphs.

You don't get to count multiple contiguous edits by User:Vsmith, even if those edits remove and re-instate the disputed content. I count three reverts for each of you.

Atlant 12:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

- I'm seeing four reverts for each of you: Vsmith's being those reported here, Iaceage77's being three reverts of the material Vsmith was adding plus one unrelated revert here. Remember, reverts needn't be related to count toward 3RR. As it seems to me there's a pretty bad edit war brewing here, I'm going to protect the article rather than dish out blocks. Hope all involved can resolve this. Heimstern Läufer 04:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Fnagaton and User:Sarenne reported by User:Matt Britt (Result:fnag=24hr, sarenn=warned)

Three-revert rule

Fnagaton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

03:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [128]

Diff of 3RR warning: [129]

Fnagaton:

Comments

Fnagaton and Sarenne have been edit warring over usage of binary prefixes on this and other pages. Fnagaton is currently in the process of trying to get the

discussion on the policy before insisting upon their version of the article. -- mattb

@ 2007-04-10T14:34Z

Both users are dodging the 3RR in their edits to
Sinclair ZX81. --StuartBrady (Talk
) 19:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fnagaton blocked 24hours. Sarenne warned not to revert war further or face extended block. Notify me if this persists and I'll gladly block if she games the system with just 3 reverts further.

^{On Belay!}

User:Jaakobou reported by User:Huldra (Result:No action)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 3rd revert: 13:51, 10 April 2007
1st revert: 10:25, 9 April 2007
2nd revert: 17:09, 9 April 2007
3rd revert: 13:51, 10 April 2007
4th revert: 16:43, 10 April 2007
5th revert: 16:47, 10 April 2007
6th revert: 17:21, 10 April 2007

Comments: User:Jaakobou are placing "inappropriate and patronising welcome message and spurious warning" ( User:RolandR) on User:RolandR talk-page. User:RolandR removed it twice, [136], [137], however, User:Jaakobou continues to add the "message". The 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th revert above violates 3RR. See also: [138] and [139]. Regards, Huldra 18:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

user Huldra is reffering to the warnings i've placed on 2 user's personal talk page that they have chosen to remove - he has been warned also for the same violation and also a notification has been placed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism - see history for my report. Jaakobou 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Decision: This is clearly a misunderstanding of what constitutes vandalism. Jaakobou, stop replacing the messages. Removing messages from one's own talk page is not vandalism. Especially when they are clearly unwarranted. I'm not blocking you now, but consider this your final warning. Kafziel ^Talk 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Had a chat with him on IRC. Seems like a misunderstanding of the use of talk pages. He said he'd stop and take his content dispute to the article talk page so hopefully this will be settled. —dgies^t_c 06:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Domitius
(Result: 48h)

Three-revert rule

violation on

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

Previous version reverted to: 20:28, 3 April 2007
1st revert: 17:40, 10 April 2007
2nd revert: 17:54, 10 April 2007
3rd revert: 18:01, 10 April 2007
4th revert: 18:13, 10 April 2007 (reverted to 20:32, 21 March 2007, evident from the edit summary anyway)

Notification: Noah has been blocked for 3RR before.

Comments

Noah is adding sourced information (I don't dispute that) to the lead, however it is already in the "fate" section. He is duplicating information contrary to the majority view on the talkpage and is making personal attacks in his edit summaries.--
Domitius
18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

2nd 3RRvio + NPA violations = 48 hours. Khoi khoi 02:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDon reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result:1 month)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 04:08, April 9, 2007
1st revert: 04:38, April 10, 2007
2nd revert: 04:51, April 10, 2007
3rd revert: 16:10, April 10, 2007
4th revert: 18:27, April 10, 2007
5th revert: 18:53, April 10, 2007

Comments

The user has been blocked just a day ago for a 3RR violation on Canada, and has had a string of 3RR violations throughout their history. -- Jeff3000 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying he has a string of violations is an understatement. His block log is extremely long and includes a year-long ban from the arbcom. I've issued a month-long block and will keep an eye out after the block expires. Kafziel ^Talk 19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Simoes
(Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule

violation on

) 19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 15:47, 2 April 2007
1st revert: 13:13, 10 April 2007
2nd revert: 11:23, 10 April 2007
3rd revert: 15:33, 9 April 2007
4th revert: 14:21, 9 April 2007

Comments

The user is insistent that his preferred publications be kept on the list. This is fine, I guess, but the revert warring is annoying.

talk/_contribs

Pretty clear violation. Blocked for 24 hours. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Poi dog pondering reported by User:DrFrench (Result:page protected)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 19:42 2007-04-09
1st revert: 22:19 2007-04-09
2nd revert: 22:28 2007-04-09
3rd revert: 20:04 2007-04-10
4th revert: 21:24 2007-04-10

Diff of 3RR warning: 22:32 2007-04-09

Comments

User claims consensus version is not

WP:NPOV. Requests for evidence on talk page have been ignored. DrFrench

22:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold the phone. We are seriously having an edit war over bold versus italicized? Umm... I'm quick to think this is more a thing for
WP:AN3RR. Heimstern Läufer
06:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and page protected by Cbrown1023. Heimstern Läufer 06:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

True enough. I'm not what you'd call a regular editor on that page. But I do recognise that the use of Spanish names is highly contentious and I respect the regular editors' obviously hard-won consensus on the issue. Even a minor change can unleash an edit war due to the emotive nature of the topic. I had also requested semi-protection for the page elsewhere, hopefully the full protecton applied will give the breathing space needed for sensible discussion. DrFrench 16:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:TTLLOGIC reported by User:RJASE1 (Result:24Hr see note)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: revert version
1st revert: diff
2nd revert: diff
3rd revert: diff
Several more reverts, earning 3RR warning here
Removed 3RR warning here
Reverted again after removing warning here

Note: TTLLOGIC blocked 24hours, also should be noted that user is talk page vandalizing. Wonkothe31337 also blocked 24h for revert warring.
^{On Belay!}
03:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Sirberus reported by User:Swatjester (Result:Warned)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: Apr. 10 2007, 10:35
1st revert: 16:25, Apr. 10, 2007
2nd revert: 17:53, Apr. 10, 2007
3rd revert: 18:30 Apr. 10, 2007
4th revert: 19:16, Apr. 10, 2007

Comments: User is removing information on Florida State University to support his own POV about the University's creation. He is deleting sourced material, whose source is the Florida State University official website and history. After being confronted about removing sourced materials, he provides a link to the FSU website, but then proceeds to completely misrepresent what it says there, while still reverting to his incorrect version. I have been a Florida State University student for 6 years, and am a member of FSU's student government, and am a Tallahassee resident. I believe I know the history of the university a bit better than this user. All of my edits were properly cited and sourced directly from the FSU website. Several editors have been reverting this person. On the talk page, the user appears to borderline violate WP:OWN, and states he is purposefully including an incomplete history, different from what the university claims as it's official history. This was after the 3RR violation, no previous talk page edits were made since

March 24th. There was obviously therefore no consensus for these edits. I would block myself, but as I have reverted on the article that would be inappropriate.

^{On Belay!}

01:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Based on the above I blocked this user for 24 hours. Then I realized he was never warned about 3RR (in fact, he has never had anything posted on his talk page except a welcome message in December of last year), so I undid my block. I'm issuing a warning now; if I've missed something, let me know. If he reverts again, please post an update. Kafziel ^Talk 04:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: if I understand correctly, a 3RR warning is only necessary for new users. Established users, such as him, are expected to know better.

^{On Belay!}

15:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to answer for Kafziel, but I can say that I am rarely willing to block users who have no 3RR warning unless I have another reason to believe they are aware of the 3RR (you can read my reasons here if you want). I briefly looked at this report, too, and came to the same conclusion as Kafziel for the same reason. Heimstern Läufer 15:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Parmaestro reported by User:Baristarim (Result:24hr)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:10, April 4, 2007.
1st revert: Revision as of 06:38, April 10, 2007
2nd revert: Revision as of 09:08, April 10, 2007 (this revision seems like an anon, but it is the same user: just follow the conversation via the article history)
3rd revert: Revision as of 03:29, April 11, 2007
4th revert: Revision as of 04:03, April 11, 2007
5th revert: Revision as of 04:08, April 11, 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: Warning given before fourth and fifth reverts

Comments

Well, is the TRNC legal, illegitimate or whatever? User insists on adding unsourced info that it is legitimate to four places in the article. Not much to say really :) Baristarim 02:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter really for 3RR purposes. Any unsourced information may be deleted at whim. User is blocked 24hr for 3rr.

User:Alaexis reported by User:MariusM (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 9 apr 04:12
1st revert: 9 apr 15:46
2nd revert: 9 apr 16:13
3rd revert: 10 apr 06:41
4th revert: 10 apr 12:55

Diff of 3RR warning: Not a new user.

Comments: Again the diffs are not identical... anyways the page is already protected. Alaexis 16:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No need that all reverts to be identical. A revert is a revert even if is about a single word. The problem is that this user is showing a pattern of 3RR violation (see report few days ago and [140]) and is currently wikistalking me in all Transnistria-related subjects (see for example this revert in an other article)--MariusM 16:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Again on some other articles, see his edits: Alaexis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), reported by --Des Grant 08:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a violation. I did warn the user though. He seems to be doing alot of reverts and talking through edit summaries right now, which I don't like to see. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Need specific examples. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:FixIt2000 reported by User:MonsieurBandwidth (Result:warned)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: 10 apr 16:06
2nd revert: 10 apr 19:19
3rd revert: 10 apr 22:42
4th revert: 11 apr 10:34

Comments: All attempts to add references and keep article focused on verifiable facts told from a NPOV are quickly reverted in an edit war.

You really should provide a link to the previous version being reverted to. DES ^(talk) 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I just warned User:FixIt2000 here (13:46 URTC-5, 11 April 2007). If this user reverts again today, add a note to thsi report, please. I am taking no action now as this is a new user and i see no evidence of a previous warning. DES ^(talk) 18:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:24.252.101.35 reported by User:Duke53 (Result:1 week)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: [141]
1st revert: [142] (remove picture in article with too many pictures)
2nd revert: [143] (again cleaning up too many pictures)
3rd revert: [144] (it looks totally stupid - removing the extra pictures)
4th revert: [145] (It is clear from the talk page and his user page that duke53 is intent on embarrassing mormons - this picture really has no purpose hear other than that)

Comments: This user, using a variety of excuses, has attempted to censor the Image:Garment.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Garment.jpg from the article
Undergarments
; though claiming that they want to 'clean up the page' their 'editing' of this article has consisted entirely of removing this one image from the article.

Clearly a single-(very-strange)-purpose account. 1 week. yandman 16:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:TheRealFennShysa
(Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 13:17, April 10, 2007
1st revert: 11:08, April 11, 2007
2nd revert: 11:21, April 11, 2007
3rd revert: 11:24, April 11, 2007
4th revert: 11:26, April 11, 2007
5th revert: 121976800 11:26, April 11, 2007
6th revert: 121977326 11:32, April 11, 2007

Warning issued here

Comments: User doesn't seem to understand the concept of reliable sources - appears to have edited under several other similar IPs in recent weeks, always inserting unsourced and/or unencyclopedic content into Pixar-related entries. Barely communicates through edit summaries, hardly even posts on talk pages. Refuses to stop edit warring until he gets his versions posted.

Blocked for 24 hours. DES ^(talk) 19:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:HongQiGong reported by User:John Smith's (Result:page protected)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 21:04, 10 April 2007
1st revert: 16:56, 11 April 2007
2nd revert: 17:01, 11 April 2007
3rd revert: 17:07, 11 April 2007
4th revert: 17:31, 11 April 2007

Comments: Although the second revert was not to that of the first one, it was similar to previous edits he made removing content from the "support" section. The content he removed in this edit is similar to the content he removed in this edit.

He has been blocked in the past for breaking 3RR - he knows the rules. John Smith's 17:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know the rules. That's why I'm very careful not to violate 3RR. There is no 3RR violation here. The second edit listed here is not the same edit as the other three. The content dispute in question here is the inclusion of notable academic by the name of Gao Mobo. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

First it doesn't matter if the second edit was not the same as the others - you were changing content as you had done previously, so it was still a revert.

Second we have been discussing the edits you mentioned on the talk page while it was locked - you said absolutely nothing when I, Xmas1973 and Bgaulke objected to Giovanni's continued insistence that this guy appear in the article. You had your chance to comment further before the block was lifted. To suddenly start reverting is a sign you won't respect the opinions of other editors. John Smith's 17:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you reverted Giovanni's edit without question first, and you also edit warred. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I made it clear I did not support Gao's inclusion - Giovanni still put him in. However I did not revert more than 3 times - I also asked you repeatedly on your talk page to stop cutting out content from the article just in the support section. I even tried to trim the whole article to reach a compromise, but you still kept cutting out stuff. John Smith's 18:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:72.10.97.6 reported by User:Ronbo76 (Result:vandalism)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
1st revert: Revision as of 09:46, April 11, 2007
2nd revert: Revision as of 09:51, April 11, 2007
3rd revert: Revision as of 09:54, April 11, 2007
4th revert: Revision as of 09:56, April 11, 2007

Comments: Was given a level four message for errors introduced into article as the result of its many edits (Current revision (09:52, April 11, 2007. Ronbo76 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This is simple vandalism; no need to invoke 3RR here. Since the last edit was three hours ago, I'm not going to block for now; if he/she starts up again, list at
WP:AIV (and go there for all other vandalism issues in the future, thanks). Heimstern Läufer
21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Martin taleski reported by User:FunkyFly (Result:48h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 09:29, 10 April 2007
1st revert: 15:33, 11 April 2007
2nd revert: 15:48, 11 April 2007
3rd revert: 15:56, 11 April 2007
4th revert: 16:01, 11 April 2007
5th revert: 16:46, 11 April 2007

Comments

Has been removing the fact that Clement of Ohrid was Bulgarian. His previous 3RR block just expired and he is back reverting. Note his block evasion on his talk to revert on the same article. /FunkyFly.talk_ 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

True, i have been reverting the page, but i have provided sources for my edits in the talk page as well! Martin taleski 20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You have not provided valid sources and you are reverting against consensus - at least 3 people, plus you have tried to evade your previous block. /FunkyFly.talk_ 20:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources are reliable, Obolensky is one of the greatest Byzantine Historians in the world... And i was not aware of the 3RR policy up untill a couple of days ago Martin taleski 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it is clear that you were aware of the rule. As this is a second offense, 48-hour block. Please discuss changes rather than repeatedly reverting. Heimstern Läufer 21:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Yakuman reported by User:4.232.174.242 (Result:IP blocked 48 Hours)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: [146]
1st revert: [147]
2nd revert: [148]
3rd revert: [149]
4th revert: [150]

This isn't a good faith complaint. User:4.232.174.242 has been vandlaizing the user's talk page and I've now blocked that account for 48 hours. -Will Beback · † · 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:192.147.67.12 reported by User:Khoi khoi (Result:48h)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 20:12, 10 April 2007
1st revert: 16:56, 11 April 2007
2nd revert: 18:49, 11 April 2007
3rd revert: 23:31, 11 April 2007
4th revert: 23:54, 11 April 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 23:52, 11 April 2007

Comments

User has previously been blocked for violating 3RR on the same article. Khoi khoi 00:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

48 hours. Heimstern Läufer 00:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:KURDBIJISTAN reported by User:Baristarim (Result:Indef)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: 22:13, April 11, 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: [151]

Comments

Suspected sockpuppet of User:Artaxiad, which was blocked for a year yesterday by ArbCom. User also vandalized my user page [152] even though he took it back later on. He used another account to engage in edit-warring in the same article, doing the same edits last night. I will also leave a note at AN/I about this, but I would like this to be on the record. Baristarim 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

He has vandalized many pages, again vandalized my user page - please see contributions here: [153] - all vandalism Baristarim 01:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The user is on a vandal spree (still vandalizing my user page), and he has put up speedy notices to his user page and talk page, the one for the talk page was declined by an admin.. Block is pretty urgent.. Baristarim 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Been take care of at another level and indef blocked for being a trolling-only account. Baristarim 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Des_Grant reported by User:Alaexis (Result: Warned)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 08:30, 9 April 2007
1st revert: 11:09
2nd revert: 11:25
3rd revert: 11:28
4th revert: 11:35

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

Diff of 3RR warning: 11:35

Comments

This user also reverted several other pages (like

List of unrecognised countries without any comments on the talkpages and without any consensus. i doubt it's really a new user as he began his wikilife with massive reverts on a range of articles about unrecognised states. Furthermore he's accused (falsely) me of violating 3RR on this page.User:Alaexis

Alaexis is a subcriber here on this Administrators' noticeboard for 3RR, See this link. Nevertheless, I asked on talk page: DO NOT BLIND REVERT, and I said I don't like blind reverts from him. No reply there. I'm new here but I don't like what I see here. --Des Grant 09:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Getthefacts reported by User:Dessources (Result:Indef)

Three-revert rule

List of reverts by Getthefacts on 12 April

1st revert: 07:11
2nd revert: 07:19
3rd revert: 07:52
4th revert: 09:51

While I typed this message, and in spite of my warning, Getthefacts has done a fifth revert:

5th revert: 10:34

Diff of 3RR warning: 10:17

Getthefacts edit of the page on the previous day was reverted by a long-time editor of the article, and his subsequent attempts were reverted by different editors.

Comments: This "new" editor seems to have as its only purpose to force the addition to the
Passive Smoking and Smoking ban
. One may suspect that the same individual is behind this scheme, or that this is an organized move to sabotage the article.

--Dessources 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Add Smokinglobby (talk · contribs) to that. Added the same link. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Warned, since he only has one contrib. If he adds the link again, I'll block as a sock. Kafziel ^Talk 12:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Shac1‎ reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24 hrs)

Three-revert rule

Previous version reverted to: 16:05, April 7, 2007
1st revert: 20:53, April 11, 2007
2nd revert: 21:12, April 11, 2007
3rd revert: 12:24, April 12, 2007
4th revert: 13:15, April 12, 2007

Comments: Shac1 has violated the 3RR in trying protect Capella University from being "whitewashed." However, in his or her zeal he or she has violated the 3RR and begun labeling good-faith edits (namely, mine) vandalism and reverting them. --ElKevbo 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Clear 3RR violation. 24 hour block. There may also be some BLP issues with the content that User:Shac1 was inserting into the artilce, but i haven't cheked the sourcing yet -- it may well be properly sourced. DES ^(talk) 18:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is very clear that this is not an incident of a violation of the 3RR by a user. Rather it shows that ElKevbo was zealously whitewashing the article and then inappropriately used his role as editor to block a user who had followed all appropriate channels to seek a solution. Examples of ElKevbo white washing include

1st revert: [154]
2nd revert: [155]

This problem is also noted on [ElKevbo's talk page]Arla364 22:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

- I have to wonder how this user found this page on his or her very first two edits. DES ^(talk) 22:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  - he's a confirmed sock of Shac1.Rlevse 23:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Deepstratagem reported by User:WilyD (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule

violation on

Previous version reverted to: This April 11th, 7:29 version is the one that was in place when he began all this

Even after having told him he'd been reported here [156] he's gone and made another revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America&curid=587&diff=122287897&oldid=122271983]

1st revert: 4:17 Apr 13
2nd revert: 2:45 Apr 13
3rd revert: 1:17 Apr 13
4th revert: 19:48 Apr 13
5th revert: 13:21 Apr 12
6th revert: 12:56 Apr 12

There are additional reverts past 24 hours I won't include, with no less than 5 editor reverting him.

Comments: I'm not sure this is even a content dispute anymore, I'm pretty sure it's a straight
WP:POINT problem. I've already warned him [157] to knock it off and behave, but that hasn't helped. WilyD
18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Hughey reported by User:C56C (Result:no vio)

Three-revert rule

Hughey continues to remove reference to Attorneygate title (which is sourced to Time magazine), without discussion on the talk page even though the issue was previously addressed twice on the page.

Previous version reverted to: 15:46, 12 April 2007
1st revert: 16:42, 12 April 2007
2nd revert: 17:21, 12 April 2007
3rd revert: 17:37, 12 April 2007
4th revert: 18:09, 12 April 2007

Comments

I'm not seeing how the first edit is a revert. It certainly doesn't match the given "version reverted to". No vio unless someone can show how the first is a revert. Heimstern Läufer 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gman124 reported by User:Floria L (Result:no block)

Three-revert rule

violation on