Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
FeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)
18,409 edits
FeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)
18,409 edits
Line 3,240: Line 3,240:
*Blocked, 24 hrs [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*Blocked, 24 hrs [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


===[[User:2005]] reported by User:Jayjg (Result:)===
===[[User:2005]] reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24hr)===
[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|Wikipedia:External links}}. {{3RRV|2005}}:
{{Article|Wikipedia:External links}}. {{3RRV|2005}}:
Line 3,264: Line 3,264:
''' Comments:'''
''' Comments:'''
*Experienced editor, has been editing regularly for over a year and a half. Was kind enough to mark each of his reverts as a revert. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*Experienced editor, has been editing regularly for over a year and a half. Was kind enough to mark each of his reverts as a revert. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
*Blocked, 24hr. [[User:FeloniousMonk|FeloniousMonk]] 00:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


=== Sample violation report to copy ===
=== Sample violation report to copy ===

Revision as of 00:26, 28 November 2006

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


    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report



    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:Pmanderson reported by User:Skyemoor (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Democratic-Republican_Party_(United_States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User-multi error: "Septentrionalis" is not a valid project or language code (help).:

    Most changes are compound changes, seemingly also intended to elude detection, so the references below are for the last change in each compound change set:


    Time report made: Skyemoor 02:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:There have been several points at which we had arrived at a consensus with Pmanderson|Septentrionalis, though invariably each time he returned to his original point. He has set others up for 3RR in the past (myself included), but immediately afterwards pretends to agree with a new consensus until his 4RRs become 'stale', then it's back to his same old tricks, at which he is quite accomplished. As he has set up others in edit wars, posted 4RR notices, and escaped unscathed, it is only fair that he face the same music himself and wear the badge he foists upon others. Then perhaps he will truly participate in collaborative editing, instead of drawing us (and yes, I am to blame too) into senseless lameness.

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR"

    I'm afraid this seems stale to me. If its continuing, you'll need to update it William M. Connolley 09:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Room218 reported by User:Jjok (Result: prot)

    Extensive three-revert rule violations on Kofun period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Joseon Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Korea under Japanese rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and attempts of 3RR avoidance by editing from ip. User:Room218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his ip addresses (see detail: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Room218):

    Kofun period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Joseon Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Korea under Japanese rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Time report made: 04:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    2006-11-12T20:17:48 Steel359 (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Kofun period: Edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Constantzeanu reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result:96 hours)

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

    Time report made: 08:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:
    Please check his block log. Khoikhoi 19:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    96 hours.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Petervonpauer/User:207.181.10.71 reported by User:TodorBozhinov (Result:)

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

    Time report made: 13:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Fmt; Why is the IP the same? William M. Connolley 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you mean? It should be different perphaps? Also, please note two further Petervonpauer reverts: 17:27 and 18:28. The guy's now been blocked for over a month, so I guess this report doesn't really matter now, but we could have prevented the reverts earlier :) Todor→Bozhinov 18:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, why is the IP the same person? How do I know? But as you say: 2006-11-13T15:35:38 Shreshth91 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Petervonpauer (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1.34252 months (vandal - only) William M. Connolley 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see, I had misunderstood you :) Well, it's an obvious sockpuppet — why would anyone else insert the same POV external links again and again? Possibly I should've brought this to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or somewhere else as it involves sockpuppetry, but anyway, it's been solved already. Todor→Bozhinov 19:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.219.13.28 reported by User:Xiliquiern (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.219.13.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 14:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This article has been the frequent target of (ocassionally persistant) anonymous IP vandals who do nothing but revert the page. A long process of criticism citation and removal has been taking place on the talk page, and has been archived for viewing. Regardless of invitation, many IP vandals continue to make edits, but this is the first to knowingly break 3RR (see the user's talk page - they were invited to discuss the changes in the talk page and well warned of further reverts). The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts remains in its current vandalised state because further editing from myself will break my 3RR. However, I believe I may do so without persecution per WP:BLP, is that the case?

    24h. Its better not to re-revert it yourself: is there really no-one else interested? William M. Connolley 15:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are a couple others, but they usually have relatively busy daily lives and only stop by once a day at most. I'll leave it for them. Also, do you think it may be worth semi-protecting the page? I would hate to do so, but I think only 1/20 anons do anything to improve the page. Thanks. - xiliquiernTalk 15:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BenGibson reported by User:JereKrischel (Result:24h)

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

    Time report made: 18:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Anarcho-capitalism reported by User:Donnachadelong (Result:12h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mutualism (economic theory) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anarcho-capitalism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 20:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Not simply 3RR, but reverting to Original Research and POV-pushing. Request for Comment already opened.

      • This was an improper block. Look at the claimed 4th revert. That was insertion of new content and was sourced. It was in the same general location so it looked like a revert if one didn't look closely, but it wasn't. How can I appeal this?Anarcho-capitalism 15:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rottentomatoe reported by User:999 (Result:)

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


    Time report made: 20:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

    The 3rd "revert" was simply me trying to add something in. I was editing something I agreed with, yet adding alot of extra information. I was making an edit in the 3rd "revert" then it didn't come out like I intended, so I posted it differently.

    The 4th "revert" was actually an attempt at a compromise. User Pete K, who originally made the addition I wanted to delete, told me to remove the information I agreed with and he'd consent to remove the information that I didn't agree with. User 999, who never made an original contribution to the article, then reverted.

    The 6th "revert" is laughable. Again, there were several sentences on antisemitism that I agreed with, but only took it out because user Pete K said that he'd agree to have a long quote on "Jewry" taken out if I took out the sentences on antisemitism. Then the two meatpuppets put the Jewry quote back in. So I put the antisemitism sentences back in (since I was originally the person who took them out).

    It may take a bit of investigation, but I think you'll clearly find that I only made 3 reverts.

    Furthermore I would like to say that I never would have even made 3 reverts if I wasn't "pushed to the limit" from an obvious tag-teaming effort. I don't know if this is the place to do this, but I'd like to complain about user 999 and his partner in crime, Hanuman Das. They are obviously teaming up (I saw that they have a history of this) to circumvent the 3RR. Rottentomatoe 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Astrotrain reported by User:Calgacus (Result:)

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

    • User is hostile to the Gaelic language of Scotland (e.g. "no need to use a foreign language" [1]), and the user is reverting on this page on the issue of the Gaelic name of the Bank. He wants either the Gaelic name out or a dispute tag if it's in, and was reverting to either of these two goals. Considers himself an experienced user, as you can see here, but the user has already been blocked 3 times for violations of 3RR, last time little more than a month ago. I am now one of three users he's been reverting; I had previously offered to him to pull out of the dispute, on two occassions, here and even on his talk page, but he ignored my offer in order to continue being a revert-warrior. I can't see what else can be done?! Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Time report made: 21:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

    User:Calmheads and his IP sock User:68.82.82.248 and his new sock User:Captkangaroo reported by User:JBKramer (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Free Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Calmheads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)&68.82.82.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)&Captkangaroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    3rr Warning --> [2]

    Time report made: 22:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: After brokering an uneasy truce on the article, revertwarrior redlink shows up to revert to his preferred version, which violates NOR, NPOV, and RS. Wouldn't you know, that after warning revertwarrior redlink, some IP address favors his version also? JBKramer 22:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Melmoththewanderer reported by User:Interestingstuffadder (Result:)

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

    3rr Warning --> [3]

    Time report made: 23:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User just violated the three revert rule. Although she accused me of violating this rule, I did not. I had only 3 edits within 24 hour period.

    User:Clamster5 reported by User:CyberGhostface (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on The_End_(A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Clamster5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 23:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has frequently been reverting on this article for the last couple of days now.


    User:163.221.125.141 reported by User:Reuben (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Dokdo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 163.221.125.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User warned about 3RR: 22:15, 13 November 2006, continues reverting.

    Time report made: 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Imposing Japanese POV in naming dispute, contrary to consensus.

    User:Alyeska reported by User:Calton (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on User:Alyeska/Battlefield_2_Ranks (edit | [[Talk:User:Alyeska/Battlefield_2_Ranks|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alyeska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 06:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User is removing an MFD tag, calling it "reverting vandalism" and "Reverting unwanted edits of my PERSONAL PAGE." User is certainly aware of 3RR, given his last edit summary of 3rr doesn't apply to reverting vandalism. Of course it would be interesting to see the voice of the defense silenced by blocking them. A clear violation of any attempt at due process)

    User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Kiyosaki (Result:)

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

    Removal of Desmond Tutu information from the article. Mass revert erroneously titled "copy edit" when it involved significant content deletions of others' contributions.

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

    Comment: This user appears hostile (as the violation is only one example) to presenting reliable sources to create the basis for the article, and seeks via POV to focus on critics instead to be the basis of the article. Whether or not this is deliberate is to be reviewed. However, I cannot believe that a mass revert of content can be called a "copyedit" because WP:copyedit does not refer to covering content reverts.

    Time report made: 06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    The above was one edit and three reverts made on October 24. Kiyosaki has made this report because he has just violated 3RR himself and is trying to distract people's attention. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs for the sake of clarity:

    • 1st edit (copy edit, which included moving a Desmond Tutu section) 09:54 Oct 24
    • Ist revert 20:10 Oct 24
    • 2nd revert 20:19 Oct 24
    • 3rd revert 20:23 Oct 24
    • My next edit restored the Tutu material that Kiyosaki complained had been moved during the three reverts. It was therefore a partial self-revert, not another revert. Kiyosaki has had this explained to him already several times, including in the edit summary. 22:17 Oct 24.

    User:Kiyosaki report by SlimVirgin (Result: 24 hours)

    3RR violation on Jewish lobby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Kiyosaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Comments

    Kiyosaki is a suspected sockpuppet who edits disruptively on a number of articles, and who has been warned about 3RR before and blocked for it once on November 9. [9] His attempt to report me for an October 24 3RR (which was one edit and three reverts) above, because he knew he had just violated 3RR himself, is his characteristic behavior. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You are disruptive and you are deceptive in most of your edits. I am still learing about 3RR, and still maintain that my "revert" was an "edit", and you like to play games to hurt people. Please do not accuse others until you review your own conduct first. You flat out removed info about Desmond Tutu that I spent hours on including (with reiable sources/footnotes), and you removed it 4 times in 11 hours, because you are hostile and disruptive. Your actions above, speak for themselves and they continue. Thanks.Kiyosaki 07:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Before he created user:Kiyosaki, the same person made a few edits as Kyosaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without the i. One of his first edits, on October 22, was to warn another user about 3RR, [10] so he knows very well what it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eleemosynary reported by User:Caper13 (Result:)

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

    Eleemosynary has been warned on their talk page multiple times in the past about the 3RR Rule (and has been blocked for 3rr violations in the past. Additionally they were warned today about Edit Warring and the 3RR rule on the Rush Limbaugh Talk page. [11] You can check their block log here [12]

    Time report made: 07:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Here is typical entry on the talk page this person is making. Your stonewalling continues to be ridiculous. Your attempts to game the system and throw up procedural firewalls are laughable. That you ignore every reasoned argument is not the fault of your fellow editors. No one owes you further explanations. Eleemosynary 04:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC) This user continues to revert entries and has begin blanking other sections of the article they feel are objectionable as well.

    Caper13 is, true to form, dissembling. Please note the above "11 reverts" are, in most cases, for different edits. The quote he has posted for me above needs to be considered in response to his behavior on the Rush Limbaugh Talk Page, in which he has displayed bad faith editing, obnoxious cheerleading, many attempts to "game the system," and many, many 3RR violations of his own (judging by his standard). He has also chosen to "pile on" on my Talk Page (in violation of WP:DICK), after I had been warned, politely, by Allen3. I have removed his troll bait from my page, and welcome an admin's thorough examination of this matter. Eleemosynary 02:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the type of personal attack and distortion we are having to deal with. My only entry on her talk page was to inform Eleemosynary (as is is advised to do on this page) that I had reported her for 3RR violation. My entry to her talk page (which she reverted calling it troll bait) is here [13]. Eleseemosynary continues to revert entries on the page, having just made her 12'th edit in addition to those previously listed above. Can someone please address this ongoing issue. I would also welcome any Admin who wanted to examine this matter. Caper13 04:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My latest edit was only after responding on the Talk Page, and was a different edit than my previous ones. Caper13 is dissembling once again. Caper13 has also shown a stubborn adversion to ANY input on the Talk Page which aims to include sourced criticism of Rush Limbaugh, or remove cheerleading. When she is called on it, she simply accuses others of "personal attacks." Not an uncommon event on political pages. Eleemosynary 04:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to fan the flames by defending myself point by point. I simply invite the Admin deciding this to examine all my statements and all of Eleseemosynary's statements on the Rush Limbaugh Talk Board and you can make up your own mind about what is going on there. [14] Caper13 04:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    By all means, take a look at what's going on at that Talk Page. And please note the "12th revert" listed above took place a day and a half after the supposed "1st revert." Eleemosynary 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Eleemosynary spent yesterday making WP:POINT edits to Rush Limbaugh. I reverted him a few times but he seems unreasonable and determined to make whatever point he is trying to make. --Tbeatty 04:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Tbeatty's edit history on the Limbaugh page for further perspective. You may want to check out his Talk Page. It's one of the few pages on Wikipedia that is actually more contentious than my own. Tbeatty is logrolling here for Caper13. Such activity is common for ardent Limbaugh fans currently erasing all balance from the article page. Eleemosynary 14:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jiang reported by User:Alan (Result: no block)

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

    Time report made: 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This is not the first time this guy violates the 3RR rule. But because he himself is an admin, he kind of got out of it every time. Anyway, this time he clearly violated the 3RR rule. Furthermore, deleting things without discussion is a kind of vandalism, but he doesn't care.

    You've forgotten the pre-version; but more importantly the 4th R is well outsied 24h William M. Connolley 09:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mujeerkhan reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 10:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The user is an abusive sock puppet master and has used his sockpuppets to violate 3RR on this article before. Checkuser is here.User has been trying to push a fanatic POV (for months) and is disrupting the scholarly efforts of several users to improve the article.Hkelkar 10:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    fmt properly please William M. Connolley 13:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Dunno why this keeps happening. Hkelkar 14:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 20:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rrfayette reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Notability (web) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Notability (web)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rrfayette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 14:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User continues to revert to his edits, even though he's been warned multiple times not to engage in edit wars. This guideline has undergone major revisions, mostly at the hands of one new editor and with no regard for consensus.

    User:68.9.116.87 reported by User:IronDuke (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mel Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.9.116.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User:62.56.125.22 reported by User:DWaterson (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on University of Bedfordshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 62.56.125.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:


    User:CyberGhostface reported by User:Clamster5 (Result: protection)

    Three-revert rule violation on The End (A Series of Unfortunate Events) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:CyberGhostface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 23:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: A number of these edits don't follow the 3RR rules. Some of them are different edits, and one is simply reverting vandalism. Sorry. Also, Clamster5 has made several reversions as well if you check the history on the page.--CyberGhostface 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    They're all reverts, although one is to revert unrelated vandalism. Not counting that one, it still leaves 5. All the others are reverts of my edits to the page that are not vandalism. Clamster5 23:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So in other words you falsely added an unrelated revert? And what, your reverts don't count? Surely you've broken the 3RR twice now, hmmm?--CyberGhostface 23:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I broke the rule. But that doesn't mean you didn't. I'll remove the revert that wasn't idential to the others. Happy? Clamster5 23:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Theres number 6. Clamster5 23:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC) and number 7. Clamster5 23:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And another one for you. You can almost smell the hypocrisy.--CyberGhostface 23:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are aware that you've also broken it as well and that you have every chance that I do of getting blocked?--CyberGhostface 23:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Number 8. Clamster5 23:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well done children: 2006-11-14T23:57:38 Steel359 (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected The End (A Series of Unfortunate Events): Edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) William M. Connolley 09:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thebee reported by User:Hanuman Das (Result: 8h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Rudolf Steiner's views on race and ethnicity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thebee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 01:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Eleemosynary reported by User:Allen3 (Result: 24h)

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

    Please note the "fourth revert" is an entirely different edit from the first three, and took place nearly 22 hours after the first one. Eleemosynary 15:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Time report made: 04:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has also received a warning about the 3RR rule [16]. --Allen3 talk 04:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Carbonate reported by User:IronDuke (Result: 8h)

    Three-revert rule violation on List of concentration and internment camps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Carbonate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 06:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:Carbonate has edit-warred on this subject, despite having no support at all, and admins asking him to stop or be blocked [17].

    8h William M. Connolley 09:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:216.27.165.170 reported by User:Media anthro (Result: sprot)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mulatto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.27.165.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 21:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Semi protected William M. Connolley 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked User:216.27.165.170 for 48 hours for vandalism to this page. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:62.101.126.232 reported by User:195.93.21.136 (Result: 48h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Hilda Toledano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 62.101.126.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 23:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    3RR by both sides; unfortunately you're an AOL anon so I can't block you much... this however is a continuation of hte same old tedious war... William M. Connolley 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Icecold1 reported by User:Vsion (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Raffles Junior College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Icecold1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User was warned and informed of the 3RR policy here on 02:06, 16 November 2006


    Time report first made: 04:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Gotofbi reported by User:Warren (Result: indefinitely blocked as vandal)

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

    Time report made: 06:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: 3RR, warned twice three times.[19].

    User:Exucmember reported by User:Smeelgova (Result: 24h each)

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

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


    Time report made: 06:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • To accused user, please comment here below and NOT above. Thanks. Smeelgova 06:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • User has failed to attempt to achieve consensus on talk page, and instead resorts to multiple reverts, with personal attacks in edit summaries. This should be discouraged. Smeelgova 06:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • NOTE: I myself have reverted in the course of this edit history, but no more than 2 times. The first time was for ease of use for my personal edits, and other than what I had objected to, I put all the rest back in, though I admit this may have not been the best way to do this. In later edits, instead of reverting I put back in information, and tried to compromise with the editor in question by moving some information to the footnotes section. He instead continues to revert and I fear this will continue until he sees that consequences exist. Smeelgova 06:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • User continues to commit 3RR multiple times, removing information from reputable source, even after being notified of 3RR. Smeelgova 06:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 09:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC). But closer inspection reveals that S has broken 3RR too William M. Connolley 09:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:D.Prok. reported by User:Chacor (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 09:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:
    Continues to revert to a POV version, with a POV tag. User:Proto made a good edit to get rid of uncited facts for BLP, and remove the tag, but user has persistently refused to accept it. He was notified of 3RR on article talk page. – Chacor 09:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 09:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arrow740 reported by User:truthspreader (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Criticism of the Qur'an (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arrow740 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [20]
    • 1st revert: [21]
    • 2nd revert: [22]
    • 3rd revert: [23]
    • 4th revert: [24]

    Time report made: 11:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Please note that this was made at the request of User:Aminz on Truthspreader's talk page. Aminz has violated the format that the two sides have worked out, which is criticism followed by response. He uses POV language, stating as fact things which are only opinions of scholars, and clearly so. To get his POV across he has started to give biased "background information" to make the rest of the article appear in a different light, despite my remark that the article was already getting too long and that this was not appropriate to the article. He has started to turn the article into the exact opposite of the title by discussing new theological movements in Islam which are only tangenially related to the topic, none of this with any discussion, and in fact ignores my comments about it. He does not sufficiently respond to my comments on the talk page, and ignores my edit summaries explaning my constructive edits. His most recent wholesale revert was done without responding to my many comments about hours of work. To top it all off he has claimed on the talk pages of three admins that anti-semitism is a purely western thing! I am contributing constructively to this article and chronicling my changes and objections on the talk page and the edit summaries, unlike Aminz, so I do not believe that I should be blocked. Arrow740 11:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: User:Aminz and I (TruthSpreaderTalk) believe that every source on the wikipedia should be compatible with WP:RS and WP:V, even criticism, otherwise there will be no difference between other wikis and wikipedia. I believe that it is a poor excuse for WP:3RR rule violation. TruthSpreaderTalk 12:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While not conceding anything in regards to other articles, as far as this article goes, a source need only be a notable critic of Islam, with reliable, verifiable work, and that's what we have. Criticism of the Quran largely takes part on the internet due to the anonymity the internet provides. Arrow740 22:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thats 3R, certainly, but the prev-version is yours not his William M. Connolley 14:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    a lot of the reverts are in the form of complex partial reverts so are not as easy to display. here are at least four of the more apparent whole or independant partial reverts:
    the editor had been previously warned about 3RR: here. ITAQALLAH 15:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note the paragraph started with :"Patricia Crone, an scholar of early Islamic history, states ". It is removed in the following 4 reverts:

    That quote from Professor Crone was removed four times. --Aminz 21:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Itaqallah, provided a fifth revert (#2 above) --Aminz 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I made a good argument why Aminz is the aggressor here. The bottom line is that I explain all my edits, make constructive changes, and attempt to discuss mine and Aminz's changes. He does not discuss his edits, and reverts repeatedly without addressing the concerns that I made very clear. As regards the Crone part, I repeatedly told Aminz that it did not belong there, as it did not fit into the overall structure of the article as decided by itaqallah and myself on this and other articles (criticism then response). He ignored my repeated comments about. Arrow740 22:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did discuss. In any case, Admin User: Robdurbar said: "what I want to press home to you is even where you are correct and other users are being disruptive rerverting more than a couple of times is not the way to do things. The three revert rule - and please make sure you've read it - is there to stop edit wars; when enforcing it, it is irrelevant who is 'correct' in any dispute" --Aminz 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't. Admin, please see this [31] which is itaqallah summarizing some of arguments. Arrow740 22:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    this is the page for 3RR violations, not content disputes. as for misrepresenting the context of a previous discussion in which you were not involved: we were specifically talking about the format of presenting actual criticisms, which was necessary to formulate per the critique-spamming and granting of undue weight to one side, not the format of general article prose or sections within it (for which there is WP:GTL, WP:MOS and others). ITAQALLAH 00:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem happy to write paragraphs here. It doesn't make sense to have criticism, then a response, then criticism, then a response, etc, either in the place where you applied this principle or in a full article. Arrow740 00:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Placing lots of pro-Islam quotes in inappropriate places violates NPOV. Arrow740 00:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of whether the content was justified or not, the solution is not edit warring. 24 hours. Khoikhoi 08:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Snozzer reported by User:Tom Harrison (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 14:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    I made a good faith and WP:BOLD edit to this article the user User:Georgewilliamherbert chose to ignore and revert to his POV, having reached 3RR, he chose to seek others to revert for him. I have made additional edits to this article, and those edits that fell outside of the fuse/fuze issue were also reverted, the last edit which is shown as 4th Revert is actually of a extensive rewrite of the article to help clarify the terminology for a wider audience."TheNose | Talk" 15:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your fourth revert is just that - you extensively rewrote the article against consensus, and then reverted to that newly rewritten version. Tom Harrison Talk 16:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Khoikhoi 08:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RunedChozo reported by User:Nielswik (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RunedChozo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: he removes the picture
    • 1st revert: [32]
    • 2nd revert: [33]
    • 3rd revert: [34]
    • 4th revert: [35]
    • 5th revert: [36]
    • 6th revert: [37]
    • 7th revert: [38]

    He is not new user and seem to be knowledgeable on wikipedia rules (see contribs)

    Time report made: 16:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The image that he is removing is fair use.

    3RR + NPA = 24h William M. Connolley 17:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Factanista reported by User:estavisti (Result: 48h)

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

    Time report made: 17:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Done despite reams of arguments supplied on the talk page, which he has not been able to counter. He was told that he had "broken the 3 revert rule" and that he would reported, just before he reverted and retorted that the users who opposed him would be reported. i.e. He is conciously ignoring rules he's aware of — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estavisti (talk • contribs) 17:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My reverts were done in good faith and to prevent POV. The users Estavisti and Panonian constantly insist that the name under which the person described in the article is known in Croatia is "incorrect" and "croatisted" which is clear POV. All I did was put the Croatian version in the brackets according to wikipedia policy, I did not change the name of the article or anything else. I am also strongly considering to report the mentioned users for vandalising and especially Panonian for personal attack because he called me a nationalist on my personal talk page. In short this is a classic content dispute where these two users are trying to enforce their POV. --Factanista 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Factanista, Wikipedia's 3RR limits to itself - just that. It doesn't matter what your edits are (as long as it's not cleaning up vandalism or self-revering). --PaxEquilibrium 19:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I AM cleaning up vandalism. Enforcing POV and removing his name in Croatian is vandalism. Also putting that Osijek was in Military Frontier is also incorrect information and is also cleaning up. I have not removed anything from the article save for rephrasing POV and removing incorrect info. --Factanista 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Osijek issue is wholly unrelated to the name issue. No one removed the name in Croatian, as can be seen in any of the diffs listed above. It was simply rephrased to note that Josip is a Croatisation of the man's name, not his actual name. Is that so unacceptable, accuracy in Wikipedia? --estavisti 19:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Osijek issue is related to the article issue, adding that it was part of Military Frontier is wrong information and is to be removed, insisting on wrong information is violation of rules. Also stating that his name in Croatian is "croatised" or "incorrect" version is POV and POV is indeed unacceptable. --Factanista 20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not - you can edit stuff about Osijek in the article while not reverting the language issue, but you choose to revert at the same time.--estavisti 20:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is. One is POV other is incorrect information, enforcing both is vandalism. --Factanista 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the latter is incorrect info... as for disputing - well, this is not vandalism, but a content dispute. Nevertheless - the subject here is whether you broke the 3RR rule or not - and it appears that you did. Your discussions are off-topic here. --PaxEquilibrium 21:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I added the 8th revert of Factanista. Even after all these warnings, he reverted again. --PaxEquilibrium 19:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Versions variate across the days, but the dispute (over which the reverting was in progress) is the very same. --PaxEquilibrium 19:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noting here that I've added the 9th revert, after all these warnings. I think this deserves a strong response, as this user being deliberately disruptive and ignoring all warnings and advice. People like this really drag down the collaborative culture of Wikipedia, when they couldn't care less about the acceptability of their behaviour. --estavisti 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    48h--Aldux 21:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BabyDweezil reported by User:Tom Harrison (Result: 8h)

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

    Time report made: 18:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:BabyDweezil cites what I think are unjustified concerns about BLP at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Fred Newman. Tom Harrison Talk 18:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    8h William M. Connolley 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tfoxworth reported by User:Cfvh (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Line of succession to the Russian Throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tfoxworth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 21:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User incessantly reverts pages to versions that are stylistically wrong and inaccurate. User deduces actions to user being correct and others being wrong. Charles 21:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar behaviour is being exhibited at Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia. This vandal, with nothing to contribute, ought to be banned. Charles 21:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 21:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Donnachadelong reported by User:Vision Thing (Result: 24 hours)

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


    Time report made: 21:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: He is aware of 3RR 1, 2. -- Vision Thing -- 21:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You must be careful yourself. Do not engage in multiple reverts except to fight vandalism. Rama's arrow 02:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Freedom skies reported by User:Nat Krause (Result: prot)

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

    Time report made: 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User was warned on User_talk:Freedom skies and has been blocked for 3RR in the past

    Page protected by Blnguyen. Khoikhoi 09:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GuardianZ reported by User:Dionyseus (Result: no block; 24h for McGee)

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

    User has been previously warned about 3RR: [46]

    Time report made: 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User continues to revert the article. Dionyseus 06:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This report is a bit stale—the reverts are nearly four days old. However, in the more recent edit war that occured on the article today, Skinny McGee broke 3RR, while GuardianZ didn't. 24 hours for Skinny McGee. Khoikhoi 09:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    - His block log: user has been blocked for 3RR in the past


    Time report made: 05:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    He has been blocked for 3RR a couple of times, most recently on November 11, 2006. Dionyseus 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The first edit isn't a revert. The following three are. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The first edit is a revert. Dionyseus 06:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is a revert, what did I revert? Something from several days ago. Just because I reverted two things on the same page (if you can even call it a revert, since I reverted edits made by someone that made them days ago, and considering that person said they do not care). It is no different from reverting two things on two pages. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Deliberately gaming the system by knowingly reverting up to the limit is also a reason to block. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For which both the one who filed this so-called 3RR violation and WhiteMinority have done, but since they can do six reverts combined...
    And my reverts were justified. He was blanking the majority of the article with no justification. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please show me how the first edit qualifies as a revert? Khoikhoi 09:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He removed figures, renamed some games. If I'm understanding WP:3RR correctly, a revert is the undoing of an editor's work, a revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word. Dionyseus 09:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    31 hours for gaming the system. Khoikhoi 09:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ANOTHER CASE WHERE NOT BREAKING THE 3RR IS WORSE THAN BREAKING IT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fys (talk • contribs)
    how so? admins are still allowed to second-guess intentions and context in good faith. Repeat offenders should be blocked for longer periods. dab (ᛏ) 11:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe users should be blocked because admins have "second-guessed" what they intended to do. Anyone could be blocked on such grounds. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    indeed, technically. this is why giving out admin buttons involves some amount of confidence. And you may imagine what happens to an admin (out of a population of 1,000 admins) that is repeatedly caught dealing out blocks for no good reasons? In any case, this page is not for discussing the merits of the 3RR, and your concerns belong on Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule. dab (ᛏ) 11:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SSS108 reported by User:213.78.87.96 (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SSS108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 06:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has been blocked before for violating WP:3RR and is in continual violation of WP:DE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.78.87.96 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 17 November 2006.

    It's only a 3RRvio when you have more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. No block. Khoikhoi 09:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GuardianZ reported by User:Dionyseus (Result: 24h)

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

    User has been previously warned about 3RR: [47]

    Time report made: 10:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: He violated 3RR several days ago and despite my attempts to get an administrator's attention the case remained untouched until this morning and has become stale. Now the user has once again violated 3RR in the same article. Dionyseus 10:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that he's reverted since I last saw the page, hence breaking 3RR. 24 hours. Khoikhoi 10:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kiyosaki reported by SlimVirgin (Result:24 hour block)

    3RR on Allegations of Israeli apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Kiyosaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • Version reverted to 22:19 Nov 15 added a new section header "Commentators who have criticized the term".
    • 4th revert 10:01 Nov 17 reverted to the section header "Commentators who have criticized the term".
    • 5th revert 11:05 Nov 17, reverted lots of material, including reverting to the section header "Commentators who have criticized the term".

    Comment

    Kiyosaki doesn't like this article and seems to be trying to sabotage it by making lots of fiddly little reverts to confuse people and game the system. I've picked out four five of the recent ones: three of them reverting to a version where he removed Jew Watch (among other things), and one two where he reverted to a new header he'd added, which is four reverts in 14 hours five reverts in 15 hours. I've given the dates and times of the versions he reverted to in each case. He's been warned about 3RR many times and blocked twice for it since November 9. [48] SlimVirgin (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He continues to revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    HELP!!!! please let me review this before anything/block. Thanks. Let me see what is going on. Thank you.Kiyosaki 11:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    HELP!!!! I have been contributing to the article, please review the discussion. If I reverted 3 times, it was an accident and mistake. I don't believe I have violated the rule, let me review before being blocked. Thanks. Kiyosaki 11:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a discussion page section about the above "Jewwatch" thing. I asked for response but there was none from anyone, please review the section. SlimVirgin, you are not being kind.Kiyosaki 11:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been trying to learn the 3RR rule, not break it. Please help me lookinto it and understand it. Help!Kiyosaki 11:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I offered you the opportunity to revert yourself [49] so it would at least only be 4RR and not 5RR, but so far you haven't taken it. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, it's been 1 minute, what are you talking about? What???!!! How do I revert my so-called revert? I am serious, I am having trouble following this, please give me some time to review. Kiyosaki 11:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It has not been one minute; it has been nearly half an hour, and for someone whose entire contribution history is practically nothing but reverting, it's odd that you suddenly don't know how to do it. Please undo all the changes you made with your last revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been 'minutes' since you laid this charge on me. Give me some time to think. Can you do it for me? I seriously don't know what to revert back to, OK?Kiyosaki 11:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the above don't those "edits" (not reverts) span over 24 hours? Please someone help me here. Thank you.Kiyosaki 11:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You first reverted at 19:53 on Nov 16 and your fifth revert was at 11:05 on Nov 17. That's about 15 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to understand:

    You say the 5th "revert" was only 1 revert AFTER YOUR REVERT prior here: [50]

    To any admin watching this, every time he violates 3RR, he says he doesn't understand it, and argues that this first or second reverts weren't really reverts, but his subsequent attempts to game the system show he understands it very well. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    --All I can say is that this is bizarre, I have been editing in good-faith, not trying to break any rules that seem quite unclear to me when presented as above. Please HELP ME someone. I am being railroaded, and I don't mean to break any rules!!! I AM NOT GAMING ANYTHING.Kiyosaki 11:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Then revert yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    How? Explain it. To what? Kiyosaki 11:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Revert to the version before you last reverted and add the more recent editor's changes (he fixed a typo and removed blockquotes). Once someone else reverts your changes, which I have deliberately not done, you won't be able to revert yourself, so please do it smartish. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CAN SOMEONE HELP ME? See above. My first "revert" was an EDIT. and the so-called "4th revert" was totally a different edit than #1 edit. Can someone please help me?!!!Kiyosaki 11:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Legit edits as per talk: [51], please help me from getting railroaded. Kiyosaki 11:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • My first "revert" was an edit not a revert, my fourth so-called "revert" was a completely separate edit. Are you gaming the system? Please explain already. I do not understand. I think you are wrong, so shouldn't someone explain to me? thanks.Kiyosaki 12:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, for the benefit of any adminstrator who looks at this, before he created user:Kiyosaki, the same person edited as Kyosaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without the i. One of his first edits, on October 22, was to warn another user about 3RR. [52] He knows what it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that Kiyosaki is gaming the system tiny edits with no summaries (after many requests not to do it). His blocking history is also telling. I am not blocking him only because we conflicted. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh please. Kindly show the "gaming". Your showing up here is gaming. Kiyosaki 12:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Now he's pretending he reverted his last revert, but he didn't. [53] This [54] was the revert he needed to undo. I'm done posting here. He's playing games. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    you reverted first here at 10:46 [55] and then you refer to at 11:05 [56] Your "rv" was prior. Let's just cool it already, OK. You know you are trying to railroad me and I'd like to know why.Kiyosaki 12:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Go ahead and do it for me. Please. If you are sure of what you are talking about.

    You know Slim, I really cannot follow this. For the benefit of any administrator, please kindly review this, I didn't and know not what he is talking about. Please someone, if I have broken the rule by the letter, I cannot understand exactly what or how, so please feel free to correct the page, if I haven't done so. Yes I know where the 3RR rule page is, and I have reviewed it, however, I cannot understand how Edit 1 and Edit 4 over the time elapsed above violates the rule. I am not gaming anything, but I am being railroaded, imho. Please help me and thank you.Kiyosaki 12:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know who these people are, or why they are hostile, but I am right, and I am being totally railroaded. Kiyosaki 12:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of not knowing the rule or not understanding that reverts needs not be linked are acceptable in new users, not in people who have been here for well over a month and who have come into contact with the rule before. The first revert of a sequence need not revert to a page that had been in action within the last 24 hours. And anyway, remember that the 3RR is not a licence to revert three times; even if you had not broken the rule, I'd have been tempted to block for edit warring anyway. --Robdurbar 12:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RunedChozo reported by User:mdf (Result: 3 days)

    Three-revert rule violation on RunedChozo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) November 2006 Beit Hanoun incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    • Previous version reverted to: [57]
    • 1st revert: [58]
    • 2nd revert: [59]
    • 3rd revert: [60]
    • 4th revert: [61]

    Time report made: 19:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I hope I did this right. Anyways, the issue is that RunedChozo doesn't like the picture, and has removed it now 4 times. This editor has also been hassling my talk-page -- another 3RR violation which I won't bother reporting, but the interested can examine at their leisure. mdf 19:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RESPONSE This user and his buddies have been waging edit wars to try to POV the article; they created a POV Fork which was deleted, they instituted a bad-faith argument trying to POV the name of the article, and now they are trying to shoehorn POV information into the article. As per Wikipedia policy, I'm fully ready to be blocked, but they should be blocked too. RunedChozo 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    it is saddening to see that this user has been revert warring as soon as he returned from a block for violating 3RR, not only on Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident, but also on Criticism of the Qur'an ([62], [63]). ITAQALLAH 20:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked again for 3 days. Behavior of other participants will be investigated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow-up: On a brief investigation, I cannot see disruptive edit warring on the other side; it's apparently a unilateral edit war against a consensus-minus-one. Although I personally don't like that picture either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lord Neezi reported by User:DieHard2k5 (Result: no block; 24h for Diehard)

    Three-revert rule violation on {{Fall Out Boy}}. Lord Neezi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 00:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user is one of many that is deleting cited information from an entry. The user in question removes the emo tag unexplained, even though the citation for that genre uses emo as a genre for the band.

    In order to have a 3RRvio, you have to have more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. Additionally, unlike Neezi, you broke 3RR on the article. Khoikhoi 00:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mulattoempires reported by User:Media anthro (Result: 24h)

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

    Comments: User:Mulattoempire has moved Mulatto to Mulattopeople.

    Time report made: 00:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

    24 horas. Khoikhoi 00:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Serouj reported by User:Eupator (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Spelling reform of the Armenian language 1922-1924 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Serouj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 00:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: * I warned the user regarding 3RR when we both reached our third revert with a link to WP:3RR in an edit summary[64]. However he chose to ignore it and responded with a personal attack and possibly a threat.[65]--Eupator 00:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Khoikhoi 02:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:E104421 reported by User:Daniel.Bryant (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Jalayirids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Dmc, at WP:ANI#Sockpuppetry by E104421, confirmed[66] these two were certainly the same editor. E104421 has a history of edit warrning. I personally feel this block should be 72 hours, but that's your call. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Steel359 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "E104421 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 days (Edit warring and sockpuppetry) William M. Connolley 09:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Hkelkar (Result: 24 hrs for both)

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

    • Previous version reverted to:

    reverts to the following versions:


    Time report made: 05:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:User has edit-warred on this article before.Hkelkar 05:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Just barely past 3RR. Waited for it. Gamed system.Hkelkar 05:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see the talk page discussion, and then notice where Hkelkar put the "dubious" templates. Unfortunately no one has yet provided an outside view. BhaiSaab talk 05:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Consult BhaiSaab's block log with 5 blocks for edit warring/3RR]].Bakaman Bakatalk 05:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - There is a debate progressing there and an RfC will take time. I begged BhaiSaab to let the tags remain but he did not listen.Hkelkar 05:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Hkelkar has also made four independent reverts of my edits: [67], [68], [69], [70] BhaiSaab talk 05:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one of those edits is a revert. The others involved removing his misrepresentations and were not reverts at all (which version did I revert to?). The last was to re-insert the tag that he removed without discussion, an act of vandalism on his part.Hkelkar 05:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Misrepresentations of what? The sources state the exact same thing I inserted. BhaiSaab talk 05:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They do not.Hkelkar 05:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, they were not reverts on my part, whole or partial. The debate over your misrepresentations does not belong in this page.Hkelkar 05:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's see. The first diff was a partial revert of this edit. The second diff was a revert of this edit. The third diff was a revert of this edit, and the fourth was a revert of my removal of bogus templates, as you've pointed out. BhaiSaab talk 05:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, wrong, my revert was to fix your vandalism of removing a template that I put there. Removal of template is vandalism so it doesn't count.Hkelkar 08:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just thought I should point out admin Makemi's comment on this issue: "It seems to me, as an outside editor, that BhaiSaab has given reputable sources for reasonable material. Hkelkar, it seems is indulging in a certain amount of unneccessary Wikipedia:Original research..." BhaiSaab talk 06:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    And my response here Hkelkar 08:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Both BhaiSaab and Hkelkar are blocked for 24 hrs - 3RR violations and edit warring. Please note both are subjects at the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar. Rama's arrow 12:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.9.116.87 reported by User:IronDuke (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Leo Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.9.116.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 05:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User recently received a 3RR warning [71] on another article (and subsequently followed me to Leo Frank). Doesn't seem to be getting it.

    24h William M. Connolley 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:B64 reported by User:Misterrick (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Atlantic City, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). B64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 18:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:B64 is adding unverified information and removing important notations from the article and continously reverting edits by myself and other users. He has been asked nicely to please add an appropriate citation but he has ignored these requests and has now resorted to sending obnoxious messages via email.


    Diffs not version please. And don't forget the prev-version William M. Connolley 20:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ian Pitchford reported by User:Amoruso (Result: wrongly blocked for 24 hours, subsequently unblocked)

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

    Time report made: 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Experienced user, has been warned many times on his talk page [72] even though he constantly blanks it out without archiving. Amoruso 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Ian Pitchford is blocked for 24 hours as he had previously been blocked for 3RR for 8 hours. Rama's arrow 20:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ANOTHER WRONGLY IMPOSED 3RR BLOCK subsequently overturned.

    User:Mamin27 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 3h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Tibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mamin27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 04:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User decided to include an insult about my "hidden agenda" in the final revert. Khoikhoi 04:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    04:32, 19 November 2006 Tawker (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Mamin27 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (WP:3RR - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Mamin27_reported_by_User:Khoikhoi_.28Result:.29) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sm1969 reported by User:Smeelgova (Result: no block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Landmark Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sm1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    From the accused, please see an explicit ArbCom defense to 3RR, detailed at length and please contact Admin Jossi first. Sm1969 05:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    • 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. [73]


    Time report made: 04:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Response from accused: Please see the ArbCom ruling regarding 3RR. Further per Jimbo Wales, adding "fact" and "citation needed" is not the right remedy. Removing the offending UNSOURCED material immediately is the remedy. Let me get the Jim Wales quote.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&action=edit&section=3

    Jimmy Wales has said:

    "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]

    He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: Addition from sm1969: ArbCom notes that the priniciples for ongoing organizations are similar to biographies of living people, the specific context Jimbo was addressing.

    • Comment: I will refrain from further edit-warring with this editor on this article page, and wait for this issue to be resolved. Smeelgova 04:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment: Also a very interesting note in the edit history "this is also an exception to 3RR per the arbitration Smeelgova was involved in", makes one think User:Sm1969 is actually aware of his actions here, and at the same time attempting to rationalize away his 3RR violations. Smeelgova 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC). Please also note that the arbcom ruling this User attempts to cite has no bearing on other articles, and was only a ruling relative to a separate article. Smeelgova 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • From the accused, the ArbCom ruling has everything to do with the reversions here. The ArbCom ruling addresses specifically UNSOURCED negative information about ongoing enterprises, here: Landmark Education.
      • From the accused (sm1969):

    First defense: Per ArbCom ruling, poorly sourced and unsourced negative comments on ongoing enterprises (Landmark Education) are similar to Biographies of Living People, and such edits may be redacted immediately and are an explicit exception to the 3RR rule. All of the edits cited in the 3RR report are TOTALLY unsourced as shown below.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger

    ArbCom: Articles regarding ongoing enterprises (continued response from accused sm1969) 2) The principles of editing articles about ongoing enterprises are analogous to those which govern Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. As applied to this matter, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material may be removed without discussion, such removal being an exception to the 3 revert rule Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism. This extension of policy is based on the proposition that any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is potentially harmful.

    Passed 6 to 0 at 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    Let me now show you that the information is unsourced or poorly sourced [actually it is all totally unsourced, and it is precisely the edits that Smeelgova cites and Smeelgova was involved in this ArbCom ruling and well aware of it. Sm1969 05:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    EDIT-0 (original reversion): 11:59, 13 November 2006 This is redacting a report from the US State Department. If you look at the URL that is the reference of this report: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71367.htm This URL says absolutely NOTHING about Landmark Education and I made Smeelgova aware of this. This is precisely the poorly sourced negative information--totally unsourced--that Smeelgova cites. The ArbCom ruling that unsourced negative material may be redacted immediately is per ArbCom's own words, an exception to 3RR. (Calling something a "cult" is definitely negative information, and, in fact, Landmark Education has received many retractions, forced through the legal system, for the use of the world, "cult.")

    EDIT-1: This is redacting information that the Government of Sweden "classified Landmark Education as a new religious movement." If you read the actual source Smeelgova cites, it says NOTHING about Landmark Education. Smeelgova later posted an edit that Smeelgova would later substantiate it. The ArbCom ruling gives me, in my understanding, the right to redact unsourced negative information, even as an exception to 3RR, ArbCom's precise wording as noted above. Jimbo says not to put a "fact" citation, but to remove the edits, aggressively.

    EDIT-2: This is redacting the UNSOURCED Austrian government classification again. However, there is a twist. Here Smeelgova cites *two* URLs. The first one is to the official US State Department report on religious freedom and the second is to some unknown web site where someone posted the information. Both reference URLs purport to be a copy of the US State Department report on religious freedom in Austria. However, the OFFICIAL US State report referenced URL given here has NOTHING about Landmark Education. (The official web page of the US State Deparment giving the report definitely trumps a second-source copy of the exact same report.) This is, once again, ArbCom ruling that unsourced negative information may be redacted as an explicit exception to 3RR. I posted numerous comments on the talk page about this--the official and fake URLs and reports--and on Smeelgova's Talk page directly.

    EDIT-3: Now, we are back to the Swedish government report again, which is totally unsourced negative information about Landmark Education. ArbCom also held this to be an explicit exception to 3RR. Smeelgova even noted that Smeelgova would provide the information later.

    EDIT-4: This edit is redacting both A) the UNSOURCED Swedish government report and B) the UNSOURCED US State report on Landmark Education (because the official URL on the US State Department web site does NOT mention Landmark Education). Again, this is consistent with the ArbCom exception to 3RR for UNSOURCED negative information on ongoing enterprises.

    EDIT-5: This edit is another redacting of UNSOURCED negative information. The URL provided is dead. This is yet again an ArbCom exception to 3RR for UNSOURCED negative information.

    I have repeatedly tried to work with Smeelgova. I have brought up the issues with Admin Jossi and Admin William Connelley numerous times. I believe the ArbCom was quite explicit in why this policy is there. Putting up dramatically UNSOURCED negative information damages Wikipedia. User Smeelgova could have substantiated his or her edits and responded to my lengthy criticism on the Talk Page, but chose to continue putting back the negative UNSOURCED information, in violation of the ArbCom ruling above in which Smeelgova was a participant.

    I believe that ArbCom made this an explicit exception to 3RR because such UNSOURCED negative material is harmful to the organization affected and to Wikipedia and that it can "removed without discussion" (ArbCom's exact words). The exception to 3RR means that having it up for even an hour is considered a greater damage to the defamed organization and damage to Wikipedia than redacting TOTALLY UNSOURCED negative information about ongoing enterprises. I believe you should cite Smeelgova for edit warring (3RR)--bringing in UNSOURCED negative information no basis, even when warned numerous times on the Talk page. (In fact, Smeelgova was recently cited for edit warring and blocked for 24h.)

    Here again is the ArbCom URL and the exact quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger

    2) The principles of editing articles about ongoing enterprises [here: Landmark Education] are analogous to those which govern Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. As applied to this matter, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material may be removed without discussion [and I did discuss at length on the article's talk page], such removal being an exception to the 3 revert rule

    Even in this case, before reverting again, I contacted Admin Jossi to see if ArbCom precedents were binding, and he said they may choose to enforce them. I request that you do. The specific UNSOURCED edits Smeelgova has added are factually false and defamatory and totally unsourced. This 3RR report is, in my opinion, a total abuse of the process.

    The only other block ever, on me, was from Smeelgova for redacting contributory copyright infringement. The first time it happened, Admin Connelly gave me an 8h block. The second time, when I got other admins involved Admin Jossi, for the exact same set of reversions, the Admins (Jossi and Connelly) said I was acting in good faith.

    Again, please see User:Jossi (an Admin) familar with the interactions between Smeelgova (my accuser) and me (the accused). Sm1969 05:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, please note that this is TOTALLY unsourced information. There is just NOTHING in the references Smeelgova gives, except the fake US State Department report, contradicted by the URL of the real US State Department given in the same edit. It is NOT a matter of interpretation. There is NOTHING in the source addressing Landmark Education, the ongoing organization damaged by the TOTALLY UNSOURCED edits of Smeelgova's.

    Please also note the top of this Admin Board for 3RR:

    If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally. Chronic offenders may be subject to rulings by the Arbitration Committee.

    I believe this specifically says that ArbCom is a higher authority than 3RR, and ArbCom's ruling in this matter is perfectly analogous to my reversions of Smeelgova's UNSOURCED negative edits about an ongoing enterprise. Smeelgova should be cited for a 3RR for continually bringing in the UNSOURCED negative information that was the source of the ArbCom ruling. It damages the organization and it damages Wikipedia. Again, please look at the six edits and see who is violating the spirit of Wikipedia. ArbCom says I should remove the UNSOURCED negative information without discussion and that it is an explicit exception to 3RR. Sm1969 07:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    UPDATE: Smeelgova has been putting in dead links and zero source references before, per the exact same ArbCom ruling: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger Critical references 4) Some of the references used, especially to the critical material supported by Smeelgova, lead to dead links, lack a page reference, or are inaccessible to an ordinary reader [74].

    Passed 6 to 0 at 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    I believe this represents a continued pattern of abuse by Smeelgova, my accuser in this 3RR. Sm1969 08:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Comment There does not appear to be a case of 3RR here at all. One of the five reversions cited above is a different piece of material. Of the other four, two occured in a 24 hour period staring 1:45 on 17 Nov, and the other two ocurred within a period starting 11:48 on 18th Nov. There have not been as many as 3 reverts within 24 hours (and definitely not more than 3).

    It should also be noted that user:Smeelgova has a history of aggressive editing (often based on poorly sourced material, as seems to be the case here) in furtherance of a particular POV, of making repeated wholesale reverts of other editors' work, and of making egregious complaints against editors who do not share his/her agenda. DaveApter 17:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I also find it very significant that, as Sn says, there are two different version of what purport ot be the same info: the offical state dept [75] that does *not* mention Landmark, and the AmPat version [76] that does. The latter must have had the Lamdmark info faked into it. Which makes SM's role in this rather dubious William M. Connolley 20:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No block William M. Connolley 09:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gwernol reported by User:Gubbio (Result:Warning)

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

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

    Time report made: --Gubbio 07:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Seems to be racist anti-Umbrian motives at play.[reply]

    You haven't informed Gwernol. I suggest no block. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 20:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned Jaranda wat's sup 01:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kdbuffalo reported by User:Roland Deschain (Result:)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [82]
    • 1st revert: [83]
    • 2nd revert: [84]
    • 3rd revert: [85]
    • 4th revert: [86]

    Time report made: 20:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has a long list of rule violations (see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-16 Deletions by user Kdbuffalo). He habitually deletes any comments left on his talk page without replying to them, making it impossible to interact with him.

    Frankly, this is not a violation of 3RR because the 1st diff u present as the 1st revert was actually this person's first edit to the article within 24 hrs. Thus, he's stopped (at the moment) at the 3rd revert. Rama's arrow 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and would add that the history of the page clearly shows that the edits are to different sections. User has clearly not broken 3RR. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, let's dance around boys. The intent is there and you both know it. Fine, it'll gp to AN/I based on the following: Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The rules are made specific for a reason. If you'd like to go to AN/I, go ahead but I don't see the usefulness of sarcasm. I would suggest a greater emphasis on dispute resolution process. Rama's arrow 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The report isn't valid anyway, the diffs have to be to that users version, not from it William M. Connolley 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.9.116.87 reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 48h)

    3RR on Leo Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by 68.9.116.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Comment The anon keeps removing that Leo Frank belongs in Category:United States wrongfully convicted people, saying there are no sources who say he was wrongfully convicted, but just about every source who has written about the case says it was a miscarriage of justice, and they're cited in the article. He has been blocked twice for 3RR, on Nov 14 and 18. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    48 hours. Khoikhoi 21:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nielswik reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result:48 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on 1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nielswik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 23:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

    You bring this here hours after the last edit, and without warning Nielswik. Suggest no block. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well he was blocked several times for 3rr before so he knows the rules, 48 hours Jaranda wat's sup 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, his talk page is full of 3RR warnings. I doubt he needs another one. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether he has been told before, it is a matter of common courtesy and fairness to give a warning each time. Also, Jaranda has no email address enabled, making it impossible for Nielswik to raise objections about the block with him. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I reabled my email, he was revert warning in several articles at the same time by looking at his talk page, he is on the way to being blocked for much longer or arbcom if he doesn't stop revert warning in articles. Jaranda wat's sup 21:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Factanista reported by User:GhePeU (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Factanista reverted the article 5 times in 25 hours and 25 minutes, but he avoided, I don't know if voluntarily or by chance, to revert more than 3 times in strictly 24 hours. By the way, Factanista has already been blocked before, so he is aware of Wikipedia policy on edit wars. GhePeU 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly: he didn't break the 3RR. You haven't warned him. Suggest no block. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:3RR: reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context. Furthermore, making reversions just outside of the twenty four hour "deadline" may still result in a block (gaming-the-system clause). I wouldn't have blocked normally as the article has now been protected anyway, but Factanista seems to be additionally involved also in other edit wars in parallel, and has a history as an edit warrior, therefore 24 hours. Feel free to overturn. Fut.Perf. ☼ 02:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why was Factanista not told about this report and allowed the chance to come here and make his case? I think this should be overturned, and given that the blocking admin has consented, I urge another admin to do so. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:172 reported by User:BostonMA (Result: 24 hours Revoked)

    Three-revert rule violation on Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User is familiar with 3RR [87]

    Time report made: 00:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I've blocked this user for 24 hours - his reverts composed of full and partial reverts of other people's work. Rama's arrow 02:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See user talk:172: block was overturned by KillerChihuahua. Rama's arrow 14:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    see instead User_talk:KillerChihuahua#3RR.2F172 please - thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Estavisti reported by User:Factanista (Result:)

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

    Time report made: 01:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Estavisti reverted the article 4 times in the last 24 hours. He evaded it until this time and is extremly persistant in this edit-warring and enforcing his POV.

    Can't see how the first "revert" listed above is a revert to the "previous version". In fact, the contentious "Croatised" seems to have been introduced for the first time with that edit, which leaves us only with three reverts subsequently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 01:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that what I did could be viewed as reverting 4 times, and if it is viewed like that then I hold my hands up. The first edit introduced "Croatisation" in that place in the article for the first time, but the word had been included in previous revisions. I did explain my edits carefully on the talk page and User:Factanista didn't seem to understand what "Croatised" means and that it doesn't have pejorative or negative connotations, so it seemed OK to revert. To put the dispute in context, we've (myself, User:PaxEquilibrium and User:PANONIAN) been dealing with a very uncooperative user on this article, who seems to have limited comprehension of English (User:Factanista, who reported me here). Incidentally he was recently blocked for 48 hours for reverting the article in question 9 times in 24 hours, persistently ignoring 3RR warnings. I notice furthermore that he has now been blocked for 24 hours for engaging in similar antics again, on another article. If my edits are judged to have violated 3RR (which is by no means clear) I hope these circumstances will be taken into account. // estavisti 02:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Skinny_McGee reported by User:Oroboros 1 (Result:Protected)

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

    Time report made: 05:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: SkinnyMcGee keeps removing edits and citations. I have tried to involve every one of his edits while retaining my own contributions and those of a few other's along with line citations and references, but SkinnyMcGee just keeps removing ALL new content and reverting to text that is misleading, not cited, and shown to be untrue when checked against older sources. I have checked his content and most of his edits are deceptive—changing dates, changing credits, removing notable content, citations and references—to make the article read in a misleading way that discredits one of the former band members/producer of two albums. His only edits are to this page and he seems to be one of the band members trying to edit his own page so as to promote an entirely different history of the band than what has been otherwise verified prior to some breakup among the members. He only posts links to personal interviews that actually contradict older news articles, radio interviews and cd liner notes (which he also keeps removing from reference list). It appears he is trying to rewrite history using Wiki as a platform. He keeps calling any other edit done to this page "defamatory" and he is suspected of sock-puppetry with maybe 4 to 6 other names. SkinnyMcGee has been warned of civility issues and 3RR a few times in the past. Oroboros 1 05:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I am removing edits and citations that are defamatory to band or self-promo for Joseph Vargo. Oroboros 1 and GuardianZ, who have both posted using the same IP address 68.9.37.233 are trying to turn this article into a vehicle to promote Joseph Vargo, a former business partner of the band, and to diminish the accomplishments of Midnight Syndicate. I am not trying to discredit anyone - just listing the credits as they appear on the CDs. They continue to link to defamatory sites and interviews and I'm just trying to keep a clean article. The only admin who has weighed in on the article Dionyseus, stated that their edits are promo for Joseph Vargo when reverting the article on November 17 at 21:40. - Skinny McGee 15:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an administrator, but I agree with SkinnyMcgee that the version Oroboros and GuardianZ have been pushing is a promo for Joseph Vargo. Dionyseus 19:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't look like the edit war is going to end anytime soon, protected. Jaranda wat's sup 21:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Truthspreader reported by User:Beit Or (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 09:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    No block. 1) User has not been warned or notified. 2) The edits are not reverts: in the middle he added two more sources and referenced extra text. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this decision curious. The edits clearly are reverts - 3 of them are marked as such. All the edits (inc the first) remove The Qur'an, Islam's holy book, accuses the Jews of corrupting the Hebrew Bible. Muslims refer to Jews and Christians as a "People of the book"; Islamic law demands that... and replace it with There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands.... There is no warning; but TS seems happy to quote wiki policies and thus can be assumed to be familiar with them William M. Connolley 10:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What decision? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot see User:Fys in the list of administrators.[89] Beit Or 11:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A mistake which will no doubt be rectified in due course. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm, clearly I've been assuming too much. 24h William M. Connolley 11:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Asmodeus reported by User:Prosfilaes 24h

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

    Time report made: 13:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    24h. Please mark reverts as such; and don't submit counter-reports just for "balance" William M. Connolley 16:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:L0b0t reported by User:Dvandersluis (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Prick_Up_Your_Ears_(Family_Guy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). L0b0t (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 15:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This is not the first article this has taken place on (see Hell Comes to Quahog, which resulted in a full protection, on my behest), and there are plenty more examples than given. This user appears to believe that they are enforcing the rules, and continuously cites a handful of WP policies. Discussions have taken place on my user talk page, his user talk page (I've also warned him about 3RR here, but he tends to delete contents of his talk page often), Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes#Cultural references sections, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Verifiability of television episodes, and the talk pages of this article and Hell Comes to Quahog. –Dvandersluis 15:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    All of my edits were to remove material that violates established policies and guidelines. I will be happy to back off until discussions are done however, so far, consensus is on my side. I'm sorry people seem to think that there is a place in the general purpose encyclopedia for fan speculation and inference based on facts not in evidence, but there is not. Wikipedias editorial standards are extremly lax and editors unwilling to follow such simple rules as WP:OR and WP:V are not welcome here. As for the reverts, I will back off but when can one consider a discussion closed? How many seasoned editors saying there is no place in the encyclopedia for unsourced edits does it take for people to understand that there is no place in the encyclopedia for unsourced edits? Cheers. L0b0t 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If Lobot is prepared to commit himself to not engaging in multiple reverts again, then there is no need for a block. Rama's arrow 17:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be happy to comply with that request, this is merely a content dispute and I apologize to any admins who had to waste their time going through this contraindicated cruft. L0b0t 18:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:207.200.116.139 reported by User:EMS | Talk (Result: 1/24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Special relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.200.116.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 17:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user is persistently editing the special relativity page for his own conventions and POV. See this edit history: Their edits are being consistently reverted.

    Given 1h as AOL... may need page prot is persists William M. Connolley 18:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rbj reported by User:Siobhan Hansa (Result: 24h)

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

    User has previously been blocked for 3RR. Most recently on 2006-10-12.

    Time report made: 18:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:62.101.126.232 reported by User:Charles (Result: indef)

    Three-revert rule violation on Pretenders_to_the_kingdom_of_Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 62.101.126.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 19:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The user has been vandalising articles relating to the historic Portuguese monarchy in an attempt to add support for a false pretender (that is someone who claims to be a dynast of a royal family but really is not). His edits are misleading and are an attempt to feed false information into Wikipedia. I should also note that he is a sockpuppet (one of several) of a banned user named Manuel de Sousa. The other sockpuppets are similarly noted. Even though this is merely a 3RR write-up, an admin would probably be interested in checking out the edit histories. Charles 19:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, this is the user's 2nd 3RR... His first was for 48 hours. My opinion is that it should become permanent. Charles 19:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've indef blocked this as a presumed edit-warring sock William M. Connolley 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DAde reported by User:(→Netscott) (Result: 24h)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [91]


    Time report made: 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has repeatedly been blocked for revert warring on this article. When the article is not {{sprotected}} he edits as an IP when it is he edits as User:DAde. Myself, User:Tom harrison and User:FayssalF have been reverting his POV pushing (adding quotes of the Qur'an in an undue weight fashion) but this user fails to understand and based upon his numerous blocks over this I'd say it's time to bump up the block time on this occassion. (→Netscott) 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pinerosp reported by User:Ted87 (Result: 24h for both)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [92]

    Time report made: 20:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Doesn't seem to want reviews that don't give above average ratings. I have left 3 warnings in edit summaries about not removing content. User has also been previously told not to reverting content without giving any reason. Has also reverted such info beyond 24 hours. Ted87 20:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Mdhennessey and User:Lordkinbote by evrik (talk) (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mission_Nuestra_Señora_Reina_de_los_Angeles and La_Iglesia_de_Nuestra_Señora_Reina_de_los_Angeles. Mdhennessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lordkinbote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Mission_Nuestra_Señora_Reina_de_los_Angeles
    La Iglesia de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles
    Also, User:Lordkinbote has now started recerting me on Spanish missions in California
    Warnings:

    Time report made: 21:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This was all done while the article was placed as a candidate for renaming. --evrik (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I admit to being baffled. Unless these 2 are one person - and you don't say they are - then this report makes sense. Contrariwise, you have broken 3RR yourself, and get 24h William M. Connolley 23:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The edit that you cited as my fourth was the last one where I said that I had issued the 3RR warnings, and then that one was reverted. These two editors were going after me over three different pages.
    I was under the impression that if a couple of users were tag teaming another that this counted as an edit war. This is why I went ahead and reported it as a 3RR. I also thought that incivility (like this) and insults (like this) were not tolerated and that making wholesale changes to an article see here and here after a formal request like a request to make a name change to a page, and also fell under the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
    Last week, I put that article in question up for renaming. I have posted my reasons and today, each time the article was changed by the two other editors in question. I referred to the discussion page, referred to the requested page move and asked them to stop it. What else was I supposed to do? --evrik (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Duke53 reported by User:Storm Rider (talk) (Result:No violation)

    Three-revert rule violation on Clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Undergarment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Temple garment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Duke53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to: [93]
    • 1st revert: [94]
    • 2nd revert: [95]
    • 3rd revert: [96]

    On Undergarment:

    Temple garment, a pattern began with this article previous version reverted to[100]

    Time report made: 22:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: -- This report should also go for User:Abeo Paliurus; both have been warring with one another on both articles: Clothing and Undergarment.

    A valid report needs diffs for four reverts. AnnH ♫ 01:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that but for temple garment, we don't do "edits over several days". Has to be in a 24H period. I'd post to AN or AN/I and go that route. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What recourse does an editor have against someone who falsely accuses him of breaking policy? This guy has falsely accused me of having sockpuppets in the past and now this; it appears that he has some 'axe to grind' and it also appears that his knowledge of Wikipedia might not be as strong as it should be (he also didn't post a 3RR warning at my user page or the article talk pages before reporting this; isn't that a requirement?). BTW, there was a 3RR violation on 11/20/06 at Clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and another 3RR violation on Undergarment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both by User:Abeo Paliurus. Duke53 | Talk 05:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    i apologize ** Abeo Paliurus 16:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The above result says 'No violation', which is half true; there was no violation by me but there was a 3RR violation by Paliurus on each page I mentioned. The intent of the original complaint was against me but I don't think that the actual 3RR violation should be ignored or excused. His apologizing doesn't make it go away or right. Duke53 | Talk 19:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Crooked allele and User:200.253.168.2 on Empire of Atlantium reported by User:Georgewilliamherbert (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Empire of Atlantium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Crooked allele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 200.253.168.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: (more or less) [110] (couple of minor changes, but see [111] for non-Allele version prior to 4 reverts)

    Allele, and before him Harvardy (talk · contribs · count) have been engaged in a content dispute on the page with Gene Poole (talk · contribs) primarily. The IP edits today are obviously and transparently Allele using an IP to avoid it looking like it's him. No need to checkuser: the article history is rather clear that it's a sock.

    Time report made: 22:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


    User:123wiki123, User:DeathSeeker, and User:70.101.196.236 reported by User:Nandesuka (Result:72 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Xbox 360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 123wiki123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Second batch of violations:


    Time report made: 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    123wiki123 is a now-acknowledged alt account/sockpuppet of User:Deathseeker, as is the anon address (see here and here). He has been warned (and blocked) multiple times for violating 3RR on the Xbox 360 article before (see here and here), and has used sockpuppets in the past to try to avoid bans under the 3RR (confirmed by checkuser, see here). He was recently granted an unblock request by Netsnipe on the condition that he avoided disruptive editing (see here). It looks to me like he's not keeping that promise. Nandesuka 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Love how you forget to include that the reason for the reversion are your violations of Wikipedia:Lead, you constantly ignore guidelines and when you can't get your way so you come here. Stop ignoring policies/guidelines and making it look like enfocement and abiding of policy is "disruptive editing".123wiki123 02:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "But my edits were better" is a very poor excuse for violating the 3RR. Nandesuka 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "I follow the rules and am stopping someone who doesn't is a good reason to do so.

    I also find it interesting that, after two reverts from you. Nuggetboy manages to show up for his first appearance in this article since the last time you had be blocked for your rule breaking, and again, manages to agree with you. Wish I had someone who followed me around, helping me workaround the 3RR and voice the same opinion I have on a talk page.123wiki123 02:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that this is at all relevant, but only one of us has been blocked for violating Wikipedia policies, and it wasn't me. And, in fact, "I am stopping someone from violating the rules" is also a terrible reason to violate the 3RR. The only reverts that that's permitted for are those that are unquestionably simple vandalism, which neither my nor Nuggetboy's edits were. Have a nice day. Nandesuka 03:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please address this report? Whether it's to accept or reject it. Thanks. Nandesuka 12:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As there was no reasons to evade the 3rr rule as per WP:3rr, I am blocking Deathseeker with his alternate account and ip for 72 hours as there have been 2 previous blocks for 3rr. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DaisyDefender reported by User:Ryulong (Result:Indef, and User:A Man In Black, 24 hours)

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

    Time report made: 01:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This case is way too complex to list the diffs involved. Just check through the history of Princess Daisy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to see these repeated edits. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Next time please leave difs, blocked for 24 hours for like 6rr, blocked User:A Man In Black as well as he should know better. Jaranda wat's sup 01:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While you guys are obviously correct here (and we need people like you to get the cruft off this encyclopedia), current Wikipedia policy must be upheld. Plus, should rollback really be used in such a manner? — Deckiller 02:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I found out that DaisyDefender is a banned user evading block, so it's indef and I unblocked AMIB Jaranda wat's sup 02:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That makes much more sense; Ryulong and AMIB are too experienced to overstep 3RR that obviously (not to mention with rollback). — Deckiller 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I was unaware of any sockpuppetry until I get pinged by this in the RC channel. I just saw a hell of a lot of unencyclopedic cruft (which is probably what AMIB saw first), and I reverted once, and then did a vandal revert and warn with 3RR before listing here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chaotaoquan reported by User:3bulletproof16 (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    24h William M. Connolley 09:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BhaiSaab reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result: no block)

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

    Time report made: 05:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    I've asked the user to self revert --Aminz 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He has self-reverted [112]. He didn't know he has broken 3rr rule [113]. He did that as soon as he noticed that. --Aminz 06:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    [discussion trimmed]

    User has self-reverted, but is cautioned to behave better in future. Please don't clutter the page with discussion. No block William M. Connolley 09:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Giannial1985 reported by User:Sable232 (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mercury_Topaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Giannial1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 16:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    Warned, but seems to have ignored you. 24h William M. Connolley 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cplot reported by User:Aude (Result: 12 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 18:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User had been warned. --Aude (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    12 hours. JoshuaZ 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Freedom skies reported by User:CRCulver (Result: 24 hours)

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

    Time report made: 20:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • All four reverts have in common the goal to make Max Muller the most prominent citation (which is contested by other editors). CRCulver 20:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edits made in response to this. I think you'll see that he edited the article thrice as well. This is in addition to my advances of him asking me for references and personally talking it out either on the talk page (an act which i have done) or talking on his personal page (another duty which i fulfilled ).

    The user who lodged the complaint is too proud to ask me for further citations when I made it clear that I would provide them on request (in the edit summaries) and yet despite despite my making it clear that I have additional citations he goes ahead and writes "All four reverts have in common the goal to make Max Muller the most prominent citation (which is contested by other editors)". The only one time he did talk was in a distastefully gleeful mocking of the 3RR, which he said he was going to inflict on me here . Freedom skies 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Crculver has a history of 3RR violation, and Freedom skies has merely added info which has been vandalized. Besides Crculver's edits were disruptive and with the intention to game 3RR.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Crculver has been warned with {{3RR}} and Freedom skies has been blocked for 24 hours. Rama's arrow 20:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would he be warned? Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Crculver shows he's been blocked multiple times for 3RR . Bakaman Bakatalk 21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Crculver has not broken 3RR but he's close to it, so he must be warned not to engage in any more revert warring. Freedom skies also has previous blocks over 3RR. Rama's arrow 21:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pmanderson reported by User:User:Skyemoor (Result: 24h each)

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


    Time report made: Skyemoor 04:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: All four reverts have in common the goal to make Democratic-Republican the name of Jefferson's movement (which is contested by other editors) and to remove references to Jefferson/Madison letters. He's gotten away with flaunting 3RR at least twice [114] [115] that I've seen in the last two months, getting off because the reports about him were 'stale'. He's submitted 3RRs against others in the past recommending blocks (even against ones that had not been warned), so he knows what the violation is.

    I may have lost count; if so, I regret both the fact, and the 15 minute slip. If I had realized that Skyemoor had reverted four times, I would have reported it here. But I am perfectly willing, have said so on the talk page, and had others agree with me, to use neutral language and avoid the issue, either to use no party name or explain in full. Skyemoor has insisted on the bizarre and misleading usage that Jefferson founded the "Republican Party", and has systematically reverted attempts at compromise. (All of these are responses to Skyemoor's reversions, btw.) Septentrionalis 06:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If I have erred in puirsing this revert warrior, it's my first time. But there is a compromise proposal on the talk page; I'm going to go discuss it. Septentrionalis 06:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been going on for far too long. Blocked both (Skyemoor's 4th is just outside 24h, Pmanderson's just barely within; history of edit-warring over precisely this issue on both sides.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TJ Spyke reported by User:Trosk (24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on WWE New Year's Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TJ_Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 18:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

    Please make him stop reverting this. If you check his talk page, 3 people agree this is the actual poster, while he is the one and only person who disagrees. Thank you.

    24h for TJS, definitely. Not sure about Trosk, and not time to check properly William M. Connolley 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If you haven't the time to check properly perhaps you should leave it to those who have. Otherwise it looks like favouritism. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kobrakid reported by strothra (Result: 8h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Black people. Kobrakid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Black People
    • Previous version reverted to: [120]
    Warnings:

    Comments: --Strothra 19:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    8h. Discussion removed - this is not the place for general chit-chat. Edit comments like revert to last version by Kobrakid. Everyone just slow down are a *bad* idea William M. Connolley 23:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Commodore Sloat reported by User:<< armon >> (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:Commodore Sloat has initiated yet another edit war on a recently unlocked article. He has made a minor revision to his revert in order to avoid 3RR. << armon >> 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There are only two reverts; Armon (talk · contribs) is totally misrepresenting the facts. Looking at the edit history of the article, my 1st revert was a revert to his previous version; then he reverted me with a cryptic explanation. Rather than reverting, I rewrote the passage to take into account the point he seemed to be trying to make. This was not a "second revert" as he claims; it was a rewrite of the same material in an attempt to compromise. He then reverted me again, without taking into account my attempt to compromise. I then reverted -- this was my first revert to a different state, though he erroneously calls it my "3rd revert." However. Armon then reverted again to his original state - the grand total revert count is 3 reverts for Armon, 2 for csloat. If anyone should be blocked for revert warring it should be Armon, not csloat. Is there a Wikipedia policy against filing misleading 3RR reports? csloat 03:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting to minutely different versions is an attempt by csloat to game the system. He objected to mention of Cole's sympathy for Israeli divestment campaigns. There are now at least three different editors who have checked the cites and agreed that it is accurate. See here and the page history. He is now attempting to wikilawyer about the phrase "blanket ban" because the cite was dropped from my version. It was however the phrase used by Cole in the old version, which sourced Cole's blog, that he reverted to. I also quoted it in my edit summary "Israeli academics as a class have not done anything wrong and it is not right to subject them to a blanket ban." Please take his page disruption into account when deciding on the length of his block. << armon >> 05:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please WP:AGF, Armon. I was not "gaming the system"; I was attempting to compromise based on your cryptic edit summary that there was a POV problem. The differences between versions was not minute; I removed the material I thought you had objected to on NPOV grounds and made changes I thought were appropriate as a compromise. I had no way of knowing how invested you were in the "divestment" issue as you did not mention it until you filed this 3RR report. This is not the place to go over our differences in terms of content, but I am not "wikilawyering" the phrase "blanket ban"; I objected to it because it was not present in the cite you cited on the page (it is from another source that was not cited in your version of the page). I even stated on the talk page that if you wanted to quote the blog I would not object (though I still don't see how it is notable). I think it is unfair to report me for 3RR based on this when I was trying to compromise, and when you actually reverted more than I did. I also don't see any evidence of "page disruption" and I fear that you are making assumptions of bad faith. csloat 07:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a perfect example of csloat's gatekeeping and self-justifications. Only that which he deems "notable" or "relevant" is allowed without a drawn-out battle consisting of various "unwinnable" ad nauseum arguments which only serve to inflame tensions and drive off other editors. His "compromises" consist of removing the cited content, that for whatever reason, he objects to. As for assuming good faith, that is not something he extends to other editors, as can been seen from an even cursory glance at Talk:Juan Cole. I have repeatedly asked him to stop this. << armon >> 08:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    They seem fairly clear reverts to me - all remove the disinvestment bit. 24h William M. Connolley 08:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Netscott reported by User:NRen2k5 (Result:No action taken)

    Three-revert rule violation on User talk:Netscott/Archive-05. Netscott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 05:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User seems to be experienced however a constant rulebreaker. Has been harassing me, constantly reverting that which he does not agree with, constantly reverting my statements about his reverts, and making crass appeals to authority. Seems that while he enjoys seeing me punished, he can't even stand being called out on his violations. — NRen2k5 05:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The appeal to authority of which I'm speaking is his immediate complaint to admin Blnguyen about statements I made on my User page regarding his actions. This man is so absolutely full of himself. — NRen2k5 05:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:3RR#Reverting pages in your user space is directly relevant to this. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a simple case of not harassing users in their userspace. Refrain from doing so in the future. If someone removes your comment, they have read it, and there is no need to revert it back. The only times when this becomes iffy is with warnings. So there for, no action taken. Cowman109Talk 05:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: NRen2k5 was blocked for the personal attack calling me a "racist" (and probably this harassment) surrounding this report. Of course as of today I've become a "shameful Muslim". (→Netscott) 06:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Freedom skies reported by User:MichaelMaggs (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 12:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: All of these reverts attempt to remove from the article any suggestion that the Bodhidarma story is legendary or traditional. The user was warned about the 3RR on 20th November, and was blocked for 24 hours the next day for ignoring the warning. The first of the above edits to Zen was made only half an hour after the block expired, and the user has again infringed 3RR within hours of the block expiring. A longer ban seems appropriate now. --MichaelMaggs 12:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is my first posting here and I apologise if I've misunderstood the format. The 'previous version' is here, and the user has effectively confirmed that the first edit was a revert by using the summary "(restoring text from encyclopedia brittanica)". If I've misunderstood the rules, do please let me know; I am trying to get this right. --MichaelMaggs 13:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You did indeed omit the prev-version, as do all to many others. However, #1 is a revert, as suggested by the "restoring" and shown by [132]; so is #2. #4 is is, because it dupes #3. Oh, and so is #3 [133]. 24h, then William M. Connolley 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mike mendoza reported by User:John Broughton | Talk (Result: 3h)

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


    Time report made: 14:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


    Comments: The user and the article are connected, as confirmed by an admin (per standard procedures). Repeated attempts to get the user to explain his position have failed (postings on his talk page, postings on the article's talk page). I posted a 3RR warning after the 4th revert.

    This issue should really be dealt with through the biographies of living people and conflict of interest policies rather than the three revert rule. A person's faith is unquestionably personal information. One needs to remember this email. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    3h, and a note on his talk page to try using the talk page. The material appears to be sourced and non-libellous, so I don't see how BLP applies William M. Connolley 19:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cplot reported by User:Weregerbil (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 18:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Cplot was blocked for 3RR on the same article on November 21. Weregerbil 18:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please take a look at this article. The behavior of the core group is quite disconerting. My recent reverst were simply to maintain a NPOV dispute discussion and tag on the article. Within minutes this core group of editors has insisted the discussion has gone on too long.
    My reverts have been in no way disruptive and wre only to maintain the NPOV tag. A good solution would be to protect the artcile with the NPOV tag on it and allow this NPOV dispute discussion to go forward. --Cplot 18:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As evidenced by this invitation the user in question reverted while fully aware he was doing something that warrants a block. Weregerbil 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You've only listed 3R William M. Connolley 22:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    4th dif now supplied. 24 hours. JoshuaZ 02:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to follow up and register my frustration (not sure if this is the place, but there doesn't seem to be anyone to turn to about his dispute), JoushaZ who finally jumped in to block me was involved in this debate. Adierre who added the 4th revert also reverted 4 times along with me and he was not blocked. I have never encountered such a group of editors and administrators who hold no regard for Wikipedia policies as I have on this article . I stepped in as a lowly editor to try to correct what was clearly an article and debate in trouble. This is the thanks I get: two consecutive blocks by JoshuaZ (involved in the debate). First for only 3 reverts. Then for a legitmate 4 revert violation, but a violation that simply sought to maintain a legitmate NPOV template that should not have been removed within minutes.. --Cplot 06:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Clipper471 reported by User:// Laughing Man (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Igor_Rakočević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Clipper471 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [135]


    Time report made: 03:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


    Comments: massive edit warring going on here

    User:Downwards reported by User:Clipper471 (Result: 24h both)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: 01:25


    Time report made: 04:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


    Comments: Ignoring vote on Talk page; personal attacks on multiple users

    Blocked both parties for 24h, investigating further. See also related report above. Massive, sterile edit-warring over several articles, >10 reverts per side per article within few hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Further to the above: This is just ridiculous. This is what I found:

    similar on:

    Given the massiveness of the revert-warring, the pettiness of the topic, and the blatant failure of both sides to seek a reasonable consensus, I think I'll up both blocks to 48h, even for a first offense. Plus another 24h for Downwards for personal attacks in the process. Give some other editors a chance to work it out in peace in the meantime. And I'd recommend to other admins to hold both these guys to something like a 1RR parole on these articles ever after. Feel free to review. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Beaumontproject reported by User:Demiurge (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 15:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Are you for real? Firstly, that other user is nothing to do with me so lets get that clear - what is so obvious that its is a sockpuppet? Because we both have a name beginning with a B? Secondly, I did not break the 3RR, the first change was an edit because I had seen that it was wrong and the second two were reverts. That is when I stopped editing the article, I then went into the history of the article and spotted that it was you who had deleted out the reference to Volunteer - therefore it is you who has broken the 3RR and your edit is going against the consensus, in fact today you have broken the 3RR on the Sean O'Callaghan and Joseph MacManus pages also. Get down off your high horse and just face that your opinion does not match those of the majority! Beaumontproject 16:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like 3RR to me, and the sock accusation seems very likely. I've blocked Bp for 24h; and the "sock" indefinitely. Mind you DU got the "prev version" wrong. This would be a marginal 3RR offence if it wasn't for the sock, so I hope others will feel free to review it William M. Connolley 16:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.75.217.133 reported by User:Jackyd101 (Result:Warning)

    Three-revert rule violation on Unterseeboot_552 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.75.217.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:71.75.217.133 has made repeated copy and paste reverts to the article demonstrating heavy POV and without sources and refuses to enter into discussion over the content of his reverts. An attempt to have the page semi-protected was unsuccessful, but the user has now violated 3RR.--Jackyd101 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • An anon, looks like a fixed IP, with no edits to any other pages. Looks very like a newbie and we all know what we're not supposed to do to them. Almost certainly not aware of the 3RR, and the warning did not give a link to it. I suggest a polite warning from a non-involved admin. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 18:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:BabuBhatt reported by User:*Spark* (Result: 24 hrs, but unblocked early after agreement)

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

    An established user, but was notified of 3RR here.

    Time report made: 19:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


    Comments: Album covert image being used for something other than an album article, so was removed. User reverted it four times, the last revert being done after being told of potential 3RR violation if reverted again.

    • The real issue here is whether it qualifies as 'fair use' for an album cover to be used on the article about the band. This is really a technical question and the template on Fair use says that such an image may be used "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question"; it doesn't say specifically it has to be an article on the recording. In any event, this issue is one of copyright and not of an intent to stoke an edit war. The best way to deal with this is to work out the copyright issue rather than issue blocks. Why not try a fair use review on the image? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 20:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't being used to illustrate the audio recording in question, it's being used to illustrate the band. I went through this with the Billy Joel article, and covers are only for the album article, or a mention of the album in an article. The 3RR violation is there, he was requested to revert, he didn't. Though he has found the time to go through my contrib list and edit many articles I've recently contributed to which he hasn't touched before today (check his contribs). *Spark* 20:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This could be getting into angels dancing on the head of a pin territory - is this "Here's an article about the band Tesla, and here's a picture of the band taken from one of their albums" or is it "Here's an article about the Band Tesla, and here's a picture of one of their album covers"? The latter would seem to be appropriate for fair use. Really it's a technical issue of copyright law (IANAL) and not appropriate to deal with through 3RR enforcement. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 20:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The license is fairly clear. Regardless, 3RR was knowingly violated after a warning. *Spark* 20:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

    24 hours. This user made the fourth revert after being warned he had made three, and then rejected the chance to self revert, although his contributions show that he has still been editing since he was offered that chance. AnnH ♫ 20:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Image in question has been replaced by the band's logo, which creates an acceptable fair use situation. Hopefully this is amenable to all parties and the underpinnings of this dispute will evaporate. --Durin 22:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for that, Durin. I think the situation has calmed down now. In any case, following this agreement, I unblocked BabuBhatt. It was a first offence. AnnH ♫ 22:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GraemeL reported by User:Roguegeek (Result:No action)

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


    Time report made: 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


    Comments:

    User:Chowbok reported by User:Irpen (Result:No action)

    Three-revert rule violation on Image:Sofia Rotaru.jpg. Chowbok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments

    The user's only activity at Wikipedia is whimsically tagging of images to ensure their deletion. While he might have succesfully tagged the copyvio images on his way, much of his activity endangered images that are perfectly within the policy, and are critical for the articles they illustrate. User is deaf to the arguments from other users and instead of carrying his crusade to the policy pages, chooses instead to arbitrary tag images he selects on the whim. His talk page documents many responses and explanations but the user prefers to ignore attempts to discuss and continues his assault. His position on the image above was rejected by several experienced editors in good standing well familiar with the Wikipedia policies on image. User:Chowbok in response resorted to wanton revert warring and bad-faith accusations of his opponents in vandalism. Putting his general behavior aside for a wider user conduct action, this report narrowly addresses the issue of revert warring and plain 3RR violation. --Irpen 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As Irpen's comments make clear, he is simply reporting me because he disapproves of my actions generally. This is simple, petty harrassment. Removing an RFU tag is vandalism, pure and simple; no different from removing an AfD or copyvio tag. (It's not true that tagging images is my "only activity", BTW; I've created many articles and added many images, as anyone who looks past the last few weeks in my edit history can see).—Chowbok ☠ 23:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an interesting response that defies the AGF, our most basic policy, right in its face. I do have a problem with the above user's general attitude but those I will take to RfC or ANI or ArbCom as I see fit. This, however, is a report about a narrow action of the user, wonton edit warring and it is posted here where belongs. His urge to delete a specific image led him to a plain edit war against several users who simply were restoring the consensus at the page. The above calling a 3RR report as harassment has as much a validity as calling his opponents "vandals", also exemplified above. --Irpen 06:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The 13th 4postle reported by User:JRSP (Result:24 hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on Venezuelan presidential election, 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The 13th 4postle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User was warned: User talk:The 13th 4postle#3RR

    Time report made: 23:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

    User:Amoruso reported by User:Huldra (Result:24 hrs)

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


    Amoroso was warned and asked to self-revert here: [136] Time report made:03:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Comments: this edit-war is basically about whether [[Category:Israeli criminals|Levinger]] should be added to the article. The subject of the article is an Israeli citizen who was convicted by an Israeli court and served time (twice) in jail. As such, he fulfills the criteria for this category, as stated here: [137]:"Israeli criminals are Israeli citizens or permanent residents who have been convicted of crime by an independent court of justice." There is also a "See also"" link he objects to.Huldra[reply]

    Comment: Bogus report obviously. RR doesn't apply here because of WP:BLP. User:Huldra accused him of being a part of an underground movement with no refs by putting the underground link to the "see also" section when the article doesn't mention the underground. He then failed to give those refs when asked in talk [138]. The libel information was therefore reverted and the Gush Emunim Underground link removed. Huldra then admits it's an edit-war - basically him trying to make libel comments over a living person without discussing it in talk (the see also link) and without any evidence - and I see this report of his as abuse of the system, gaming and apparently not good faith. Amoruso 03:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: The first time Amoroso mentioned the "see also" Gush Emunim Underground link was at 02:10, 25 November 2006 (that is: after he has reverted 4 times). (I do of course not agree with his argument that I "accused him(=Levinger) of being a part of an underground movement with no refs by putting the underground link to the "see also" section"). And I am not finding any refs. now; as local time is about 4:45 AM and I´m going to sleep...Finally, a Huldra is always a female, please!! Regards, and good-night, Huldra 03:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Obviously Huldra's allegation here about the time zone is wrong and seems to be an outright lie, since he himeslf talked about the link here [139] on 23:50, 24 November 2006 which was before all reverts or at the latest 01:50, 25 November 2006 before 2-3 reverts also so Huldra already knew that this was problematic. With now Huldra admitting that he didn't find any refs yet continued to place this link to associate Moshe Levinger with the group without any proof, I think it's clear why this report is faulty and in fact no 3RR took place obviously (per the rule "All users are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced blatantly defamatory, potentially libellous information about living persons... Reverts made to enforce this provision are generally not considered contentious"). Action can also be taken against Huldra for violating WP:BLP in such a blunt way trying to associate the cases with obviously no proof or knowledge of the material. Amoruso 04:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: It is completely obvious that Amoruso violated 3RR; he should just take his punishment. The issue is a commonplace content dispute and his claim that his bad behavior is justified by WP:LIVING is bogus. --Zerotalk 07:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Zero comments are of course in bad faith, him being a regular 3RR violator, he's just annoyed on a personal basis. Obviously no 3RR took place. Amoruso 15:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Obviously no 3RR took place." - Please excuse me, but I think the sourced statements indicate otherwise. thestick 18:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GoldDragon reported by User:CJCurrie (Result:No action)

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

    Comment: I've already warned GoldDragon about 3RR violations on this page. [140], [141]. CJCurrie 23:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: GoldDragon has now self-reverted the page. He also removed my initial 3RR report, which I can only assume is bad protocol. CJCurrie 01:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I already reverted back to CJCurrie's version. GoldDragon 01:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    To his credit, he has. He also removed my initial 3RR report a second time, which I can only assume is really bad protocol. CJCurrie 01:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GoldDragon reported by User:CJCurrie (Result:No action)

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

    Comment: GoldDragon was blocked for a 3RR violation on this page earlier this year. CJCurrie 00:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: GoldDragon removed my 3RR report a few moments ago without self-reverting on this page. CJCurrie 01:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I already reverted back to CJCurrie's version. GoldDragon 01:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    To his credit, he has. He also removed my 3RR report a second time, which I still think is bad protocol. CJCurrie 01:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hillock65 reported by User:jd2718 (Result:24 hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on Babi_Yar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hillock65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 08:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


    Comments: I engaged user:Hillock65 on the article's talk page and on the user's talk page, and even as we agreed to compromise changes, he continued to revert back to his uncompromised version. Jd2718 08:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wuz reported by User:John Spikowski (Result:)

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


    Time report made: 20:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

    Only 3R so far - please don't push it up to 4. No warning either William M. Connolley 20:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KazakhPol reported by User:Tendancer (Result: no block)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [142]

    Not verbatim reverts, but the gist/bias reintroduced is the same.



    Time report made: 23:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


    Comments: Me and other users have been reverting his changes due to original research/bias on the Michael Richards incident. Couple examples:

    1. introducing his OR + POV saying Richard's publicist "erroneously stated that Richards is Jewish." when there's already considerable dialogue on the discussion page about Richard's Jewish-ness or lack thereof. 2. misleading statements by breaking the section into two, then stating "publicist Richards hired after fallout from his comments, Howard Rubenstein, confirmed the report." Which gives the semblance Rubenstein was hired after the Jewish incident instead of the Laugh factory incident.

    After his 1st very rude revert (stating "Do not remove this again"), I reverted and mentioned there's already discussion and the Jewish stuff shouldn't be modified till there's consensus it should be added. He reverted right away saying there's no consensus the statements should be removed. I reverted again, this time stating my reasons 1 & 2 above on his user page. He reverted right away, marking my edit as vandalism, and added test1 to my talk page. As I do not want an edit war I tried to engage him in dialogue again on his talk page (which he deleted claiming vandalism) [143], to which he responded by writing on the Michael Richards talk page claiming I'm a vandal and use sock puppets and my--and those of a couple others who evidently disagreed with his views--edits should be watched out for. I responded to his accusations, which he deleted from the talk page again claiming vandalism. After another user reverted his changes on the Richards, he reverted again for the 4th time in 24 hours.

    I want to add there're very opinionated posters from both camps (this one is just a particularly fervent and I feel a bit maliciously manipulative one from the anti-Richards camp. I find bias in the pro-Richard camp as well). The page may be worth a look for admins to make a final edit, clean up facts + non neutral POV, then just lock it till people's emotions cool down.

    Comments No block - he didn't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Khoikhoi 05:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:123wiki123 reported by User:Nuggetboy (Result: 1 week)

    Three-revert rule violation on Xbox_360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 123wiki123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 05:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


    Comments:

    A similar block last week.

    One week. Khoikhoi 06:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Pradeshkava reported by User:Alecmconroy (Result: 8h)

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




    Time report made: 09:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


    Comments: Pradeshkava's contribution consist exclusively of promoting the religious group "Opus Dei". There are a number of other editors who have similar patterns of editing exclusively to promote that organization-- is there some way to check and see if they are they same person? --Alecmconroy 09:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 8h by William Connolley. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops - apologies William M. Connolley 21:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Robben salter reported by User:The Crying Orc (Result: no block)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [150]

    Warned: [155]

    Time report made: 09:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


    Comments: I cannot revert again without breaking 3RR myself. Can the reviewing admin please check that this user's insertions actually contradict the citations at the end of the sentence (which existed prior to their interference) and revert to the longstanding consensus on this controversial article? The Crying Orc 09:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Its hard to see edit 4 as a revert. Vandalism maybe, but not a revert William M. Connolley 09:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


    Time report made: 18:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


    Comments:

    • DrL keeps removing any reference to Langan being related to intelligent design and also insists on portraying fellows at ISCID as "philosophers and scientists" not ID proponents, which is what Dembski et al are best known for. FeloniousMonk 19:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MaGioZal reported by User:TheFEARgod (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template:Campaignbox Yugoslav Wars (edit | [[Talk:Template:Campaignbox Yugoslav Wars|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MaGioZal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


    Comments: User engages frequently in edit wars. These changes and reversions were made without approval by the community on the template's talk page. Possible other 3RR on other pages like [156], [157] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JJay reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24hr)

    Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:External links (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:External links|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 00:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


    Comments:

    User:2005 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24hr)

    Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:External links (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:External links|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 00:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


    Comments:

    Sample violation report to copy

    

    User:USERNAME_VIOLATION reported by User:~~~ (Result:)
    
Three-revert rule violation on
ARTICLE_NAME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VIOLATOR_USERNAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

* Previous version reverted to:  VersionTime

* 1st revert: DIFFTIME
* 2nd revert: DIFFTIME
* 3rd revert: DIFFTIME
* 4th revert: DIFFTIME


Time report made: ~~~~~


 Comments: 

      

    1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Jimbo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
      2.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=90551620"
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy