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
Zerida (talk | contribs)
6,695 edits
New
Line 1,066: Line 1,066:
-->
-->
As the edits summaries indicate, the user is clearly aware that he is reverting each time. He is a serial edit warrior, and has resumed the edit war on this page as soon as it was unprotected. User is aware of 3RR and has been blocked for it in the past.
As the edits summaries indicate, the user is clearly aware that he is reverting each time. He is a serial edit warrior, and has resumed the edit war on this page as soon as it was unprotected. User is aware of 3RR and has been blocked for it in the past.

===[[User:Lanternix]] reported by [[User:Zerida]] (Result:)===

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|Copt}}. {{3RRV|Lanternix}}: Time reported: 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copt&oldid=126399826]

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copt&diff=126425684&oldid=126418738 09:58, 27 April 2007]
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copt&diff=126444645&oldid=126443863 11:23, 27 April 2007]
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copt&diff=126446543&oldid=126445634 11:32, 27 April 2007]
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copt&diff=126447592&oldid=126447083 11:37, 27 April 2007]
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copt&diff=126454430&oldid=126452633 12:09, 27 April 2007]

The reversions are all the same, but there are more as you can tell by the edit history. He has been asked on the article's talk page to observe basic criteria regarding verifiability and original research, but continued to ignore these particular points saying essentially that he will simply continue to revert (without making any effort to source the claims that were challenged by other editors). I explained to him that this could be construed as disruptive editing. He is not a new user and has been warned about 3rr [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lanternix#Copt], but reverted at least twice again after that. — [[User:Zerida|Zerida]] 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 19:27, 27 April 2007

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

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.


    User:Perfectblue97 reported by User:Minderbinder (Result:)

    Electronic voice phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Perfectblue97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • 1st revert: 12:19, 19 April 2007 partial revert - addition of "anomolous", removal of "said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin" and "purported", addition of line about ITC
    • 2nd revert: 13:28, 19 April 2007 exact revert to 1st revert, marked as revert
    • 3rd revert: 14:07, 19 April 2007 exact revert to 13:34, 19 April 2007 labled as revert
    • 4th revert: 15:01, 19 April 2007 partial revert to third version above, some new text but as in all other reverts, addition of "anomolous", removal of "said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin" and "purported"

    Comments:

    • Two exact reverts, two partial reverts with slight variations in wording but the same key words and phrases added and removed each time. It could be argued that these two are edits and not reverts, but they make no real change and just make slight inconsequential wording changes to the reverted material. --Minderbinder 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Background:What Minderbinder has failed to mention is that at the time I was involved in an ongoing talk page discussion over a disputed section of the page at the time . Minderbinder was one party in that discussion, and so were two other users. I did not break the 3RR. I placed a proposed version of a new page intro on the talk page here and received feedback. I then listened to other users concerns and modified the page in an effort to reach a consensus as per standard wiki-procedure.

    Here I refactored the introduction. Here it was reverted by another users. Here I carried out my first revert. here I edited the introduction to try an address concerns from another user. Here my edit was rejected by another user. here I carried out a second and final revert and requested that the user involeved in reverting explain which part of my edit they had a problem with and why (they blanket reverted all changes that I made even bits that I considered to be non-contentious, so I had no way of knowing exactly what they were referring to). here I carried out an unrelated edit of something that I believed was caught up in the crossfire (deleted earlier on, not part of this dispute). the complaining user refactored my original edit based on the ongoing talk page discussion. here my edit was not acceptable to all parties so again edited in an effort to reach a consensus.

    In brief al my edits were legitimate and half were in direct response to concerns expressed by other users (of which the complainant is one):

    • 12:19, 19 April 2007 This was not a revert. It was a legitimate edit and a refactoring based on talk page discussion. Please observe the [1] between it and my previous version. Times and subsequent edits also mean that this is not a revert, but rather a standalone edit.
    • 14:07, 19 April 2007 - Revert, labeled as a revert. 1st revert
    • 14:07, 19 April 2007 - Revert, labeled as such
    • 15:01, 19 April 2007 - not a revert by any stretch of the imagination. Changed plurals to singulars (they are - it is). Exchanged short paragraph about one side in an dispute ("said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin") for a much large paragraph ("Believers in the supernatural often assign a paranormal origin to them, while those who do not believe in it either assign more scientific explanations to them, describing them as the result of a known process, or dismiss their existence of EVP as a whole, proposing that it is not a documentable phenomena.") mentioning both sides in the dispute. Replaced descriptive sentence ("Examples of purported EVP") with suspected weasel word, for a neutral pronoun ("they"). This is a classic refactoring. Certainly not a revert.

    It should also be made clear that was recently a party in an RFC who spoke in opposition to Minderbinder's standpoint, and I am also a part in a dispute that has been referred to ARBcom on which I am also on the other side to Minderbinder. It therefore my opinion that this 3RR call is in bad faith. I request that it be dismissed.

    perfectblue 08:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is very obvious that these edits are reverts per the evidence that User:Minderbinder put forth. User:Perfectblue97 seems to be arguing that he should be allowed to revert simply because he was also discussing on the talkpage. As we all know (and this user should be aware since he is not a newcomer) breaking 3RR never has an excuse. --ScienceApologist 10:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it is obvious that I was involved in an attempt to find an acceptable middle ground. I have clearly demonstrated that I ASKED for feedback and that I responded to it. Somebody wasn't happy about my wording so I changed it in response. This isn't reverting, it's trying to find an acceptable solution to a problem. For example here. This obviously can't be considered to be a revert

    I refactored "said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin" to read "Believers in the supernatural often assign a paranormal origin to them". Which is not a revert by any stretch of the imagination. I then added "while those who do not believe in it either assign more scientific explanations to them, describing them as the result of a known process, or dismiss their existence of EVP as a whole, proposing that it is not a documentable phenomena.", which is a unique passage that wasn't present in my previous version, or any other previous version for quite some time.

    The rest of the edit is simply singular V plural and pronoun changing one phrase into a plural third person pronoun.

    The fact that I actually precipitated this event by asking people what they want to change, then trying to accommodate them proves beyond any doubt that I did not break 3RR. I tried to create an acceptable intro via discussion, and this is what I get in return?

    perfectblue 11:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You asked people what they objected to, other editors made it clear on the talk page, and yet you kept reverting in the very text people objected to. I don't see how you could possibly call that "attempting to find middle ground", it just looks like minor variations on a wording that only you prefer in order to try and avoid 3RR. And I don't see how pending arbcom cases are an exemption from 3RR enforcement - this certainly isn't a bad-faith report. I honestly believe it is four reverts since the same text mentioned above was removed/added four times. --Minderbinder 13:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted twice and I clearly stated that I reverted in those cases. The other times were genuine edits. If you check back at the talk page conversation, you will find that the attribution of claims was the primary sticking point, and was the area that that was the focus of my two edits. People didn't like what I wrote, so I tried to find a more acceptable solution. This is how things are supposed to be done, by discussion. If every discussed something and edited 3+ times as a result of said discussion was pulled up, there would be a lot less discussion.

    I also find it less than a coincidence that this follows on from the RFC and is at the same time as the ARBcom come.

    perfectblue 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No response from any of the admins on this one? --Minderbinder 12:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Otto0612 reported by User:fcsuper (Result:)

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

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

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


    User:Joseph.James00 reported by User:PageantUpdater (Result: 24hrs)

    Asia Nitollano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joseph.James00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    A previous incident report has already been filed above (so please read that as well) and Seraphimblade warned the user not to violate 3RR again but it has since happened 2 more times. Seraphimblade is currently off-line per a mesage on his talk page and comments on my talk page, so I have decided to relist so this gets noticed. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 22:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chowbok reported by User:Quartet (Result:no vio)

    Cow tipping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chowbok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [2]
    • 1st revert: [3]
    • 2nd revert: [4]
    • 3rd revert: [5]
    • 4th revert: [6]
    • Other older reverts:

    [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]


    Please note that this 3RR violation does not take place during a 24-hour period. However, the user has reverted numerous editors changes to the image caption of this article without valid reason and is clearly edit warring (in fact any editor who attempts to change the caption on this page is reverted without valid reason). The Wikipedia policy WP:3RR states that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." As you can see by the massive number of reverts above, this is a long-term issue, where edits by a large number of editors have been reverted, even though there is no established consensus on the issue. I won't hesitate to say that there could possibly be a WP:OWN violation going on as well.


    User:Liaishard reported by User:Nightscream (Result:18 hours each)

    Corey Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Liaishard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [12]
    • Both sides have violated 3RR. Despite Nightscream's claims to the contrary, there is no exception to the rule for reverting NPOV material: if there were, anyone could claim an exception at any time by arguing they were reverting POV. The only real exceptions are simple vandalism and unsourced negative material in biographies of living persons. As such, 18 hour blocks for both. Heimstern Läufer 01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SteveWolfer reported by User:FraisierB (Result:48 hours)

    Nathaniel Branden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SteveWolfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    (new)

    I reported the first four reverts, but was told that there was no need for action because the article has settled down and there are no edits. I think you will find that this turns out not to be the case, as Mr. Wolfer has continued to revert over the same issue and shows no signs of ever stopping. Please note that he is reverting against three other people, and that I have refused to edit the article since filing my first report, so I am not fanning a fire here.

    There is a fire, though, as this is fast becoming a full, ugly edit war, the details of which I am too polite to summarize. My concern is that your act of mercy was misunderstood by Wolfer as administrative sanction to revert that article at will, based on his patently false claim of removing libel. As I understand it, only simple vandalism and unsourced negative material in biographies of living persons allow endless reversion, but this material is reliably and multiply sourced and isn't even particularly negative.

    Wolfer has been blocked for 3RR violation before but has gotten away with it since, even before this. At this point, I feel that we have no choice but to block Wolfer's account to the maximum extent allowed until he learns that he does not own all articles related to Ayn Rand. By doing this now, we can avoid the need for a community ban later. FraisierB 02:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting 3 others on a ref'd statement of fact about a school's lack of accredidation. Rlevse 03:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)...:The ref clearly states that the school is unaccredited and grads can be licensed, which is what the article says; stating facts is not libel. The ref is an official source and very reliable and refers to the school, not the subject of the article.Rlevse 14:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He is also pursuing 3rr violations on template:ethics, if you look at his edit history, you will see that he will not accept consensus on some things that are matters of fact. --Buridan 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bus stop reported by User:JJay (Result: 24 hours)

    Bob Dylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User:87.189.91.236 reported by User:Dual Freq (Result: 24 hours)

    Flag of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 87.189.91.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Oh, I'm aware. I also regard all my reverts anti-vandalism. None of the changes I reverted was in any way justified, despite continued requests to do so. --87.189.91.236

    User:Guillermo Alvarez reported by User:NickW557 (Result: 24 hours)

    Finasteride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guillermo Alvarez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    --Nick—Contact/Contribs 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DDRG reported by User:Mackan (Result: page protected)

    Joji Obara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DDRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Let me be straight about one thing - this user has not broken 3RR, and yes, I read the disclaimer. But, WP:3RR clearly states that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive". This user keeps reverting other users (but is sure to not break 3RR), has not made a single edit to the talk page of the article in question, is ignoring the consensus there, has only used the edit summary field ONCE, and is breaking WP:BIO rules. If it's wrong to post about this here I apologize, but considering the wording on WP:3RR, this seemed appropriate. Mackan 20:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I explained my edit on edit summary before, and I think that what I want to say is already explained in talk page by other people. So I didn't it. What I want to say is only to tell it clearly how it is if someone dosen't want to see it. Thanks. DDRG 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have fully protected the page. There seems to be no point in blocking DDRG for disruption because while he is blocked, he will not be able to contribute to a discussion on the article talk page. By protecting the article, hopefully the user will go to the talk page and discuss his changes to the article. Nishkid64 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. But, I think what would be explained is already done by other people, so I wonder I have something to add it. Though I will add some. DDRG 21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MrHaney reported by User:Elonka (Result: 24 hours)

    Gnostic Gospels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MrHaney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    MrHaney continues inserting a paragraph promoting author Elaine Pagels, despite consensus on the talkpage to not include it. He has also been edit-warring to insert many other Pagels-related links on the page, and appears to be a {{spa}} account, with no editing history outside of Gnostic Gospels. He has been repeatedly warned about 3RR by different editors, but continues to edit-war and retort in an uncivil fashion. --Elonka 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:UBeR reported by User:Nethgirb (Result:24 block)

    Global warming controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UBeR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Background: UBeR has been active as a global warming skeptic on the global warming-related articles for some time. A previous complaint about his behavior is on the Administrator's Noticeboard (Reigning in Uber's trolling). Recently he seems to have been following John Quiggin around, first initiating an RfD against an article JQ created; after that RfD failed, making inappropriate edits to the article, such as removing sourced material with an edit summary saying it was unsourced (see discussion and in particular evidence); and now removing JQ's material from Global warming controversy. Full disclosure: I am also active on the GW-related articles and frequently conflict with UBeR on content issues. Thanks for your time. --Nethgirb 23:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Erroneous labels serve little more than to outwardly exhibit ignorance. ~ UBeR 23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Uber for 24 hours. Raul654 01:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, what a joke. Perhaps Raul can actually stop being a sanctiminious, bigoted individual and actually use his admin powers properly? Or is this beyond his intelligence? For ages Raul has made sure he has owned the global warming article, and its a total farce. LuciferMorgan 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, LuciferMorgan is back to his old trolling. I can see he's expanded his horizons beyond the FAR page, though, where his attitude is well known and nearly got him blocked. Raul654 16:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your attitude is well known on Wikipedia (and off it actually), only you use your admin power to abuse it. May I add to anyone reading this Raul has issued another block warning to me without even considering getting an independent administrator involved which is very common for him may I add. WP:KETTLE Raul - remember it every time you call me a troll. As concerns FAR, that's the same place you used to spread lies about me which I remember correctly and also warned you were going to stop an FAR of one of your own FAs. Furthermore if he doesn't like the truth I don't care as I will plainly speak the truth. LuciferMorgan 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nima Baghaei reported by User:Michaelbusch, 2nd offense (Result: 31 hr.)

    Topics in ufology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nima Baghaei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 23:32
    • 3RR warning: warning prior to recent 3RR block (during which I was also blocked because I lost count of the times I removed the offending material). Nima has been adding material back over the objections of three other editors and seems to be deliberately being dense with regards to criticism. Nima has filed a Request for Mediation, but keeps adding back the material while insisting that we 'let the mediation occur first'. Michaelbusch 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked 31 hr. for 2nd offence per WP:3RR fishhead64 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Irakliy81 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24 hours)

    List_of_sovereign_states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irakliy81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    See block log. Khoikhoi 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User blocked for 24 hours. Previous blocks are from over a year ago, so I'm reluctant to make a longer block at this point. If he continues to revert after the block expires, a longer time may be warranted. So explained at his talk page. Phaedriel - 11:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Scottandrewhutchins reported by User:Naruto134 (Result: 30 hours)

    King Shisa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Naruto134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This user, Scottandrewhutchins keeps changing the name of this Godzilla monster into a name that is the japanese name. The Godzilla monsters there have their english names but he keeps changing this one monster's name, King Caesar to King Shisa. He kept moving the name more than once and I warned him, but he ignored me. --Naruto134 00:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Has this user been blocked? --Naruto134 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Irishguy reported by User:RPIRED (Result:no violation)

    Yankees-Red Sox rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irishguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&action=edit&section=1

    User has continually reverted information which is unsourced. Claims a source that has been continually pushed but has no basis in fact. POV dispute. Warned on user page. - RPIRED 03:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What I reverted was readding a sourced claim that the above user continually removes. And as the times show, I didn't break, nor even make, 3 reverts within 24 hours. The above user is attempting to claim a false 3RR to gain an edge in an edit conflict. IrishGuy talk 04:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation - User:Irishguy did not make more than three reverts within 24 hours. fishhead64 05:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No? So the whole thing about 3RR being "an electric fence" is just for show? - RPIRED 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Biophys reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: Warning)

    Operation Sarindar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    I would like to note also that I too have reported user Biophys for repeated violations of 3RR on Boris Stomakhin, but he was only warned. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive44#User:Biophys_reported_by_User:Vlad_fedorov_.28Result:_Warning.29

    Despite warnings he continues to revert any additions to the text by me. Although he never disputed main part of my new additions, he reverts them. Vlad fedorov 10:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Moreover, like with user csloat, user Biophys also deletes and reverts my additions to Operation Sarindar article, which presents just another version of the article Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy.Vlad fedorov 10:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure that the first edit is a revert, but everyone involved here is headed for trouble due to edit warring. I strongly advise that everyone involved seek dispute resolution instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The first edit is indeed a revert of the specific material on iraq and on bodansky. Although he did change around the order of a lot of other stuff, the revert is still clearly in evidence. He should be warned or blocked about the 3RR violation and you're quite right that everyone should seek DR on that article. csloat 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:85.158.32.6 and User:85.158.35.142 reported by User:Ivan Kricancic (Result: 24hrs for both)

    User talk:KillerChihuahua (edit | [[Talk:User talk:KillerChihuahua|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.158.32.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [18]

    Note these diffs as well, as they are very close to breakign teh rule, and almost certainly will be broken soon.

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

    User talk:Ancient Land of Bosoni (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Ancient Land of Bosoni|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Articles that he has reverted twice so far in teh past 15 minutes are Bosnian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Bosnian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and many more (refer to this).

    It should also be noted that this IP and many other 85.158.xxx.xxx IPs are in fact Emir Arven (talk · contribs) - a known POV pusher, vandal, troll, personal attacker 3rr violater etc. He currently has an RFC against him. And has been blocked 10 times including 4 times for 3RR violations.

    His IP has changed to 85.158.35.142

    Both IPs blocked for 24 hours for 3RR on Bosniak —dgiestc 04:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ivan Kricancic reported by User:85.158.35.142 (Result: 24hrs)

    User talk:KillerChihuahua (edit | [[Talk:User talk:KillerChihuahua|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ivan Kricancic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [24]

    7th Muslim Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    • 1st revert:

    [30]

    • 2nd revert:

    [31]

    • 3rd revert:

    [32]

    • 4th revert:

    [33] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.158.35.142 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    • 5th revert:

    [34]

    Also:

    User talk:Ancient Land of Bosoni (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Ancient Land of Bosoni|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Articles that he has reverted third times Bosnian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Bosnian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and many more (refer to this and this).

    It should also be noted that this IP and many other 124.xxx.xxx.xxx IPs are in fact Ivan Kricancic (talk · contribs) - a known POV pusher, vandal, troll, natioalist, personal attacker 3rr violater etc.

    He was indefinitely blocked because of sockpuppetery: Rts_freak.[35] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.158.35.142 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Comment

    This is one of the IPs I'm talking about in teh above section. Reverting when an edit is trollish or vandalism is not a violation of 3RR, so I have not violated. This user is under inverstigation here. —KingIvan 10:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR on Bosniak —dgiestc 04:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:COFS reported by User:Antaeus Feldspar (Result:48h)

    L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Notes:

    • The exact material removed with each edit differs, but in each case the following text is removed:

    [[Image:Hubbard Una.png|thumb|right|300 px|Hubbard's claimed awards per his fake [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lronhubbardfakedd214.gif DD-214]. Note that he refers to the [[Oak Leaf Cluster]] of his Purple Heart as a "palm". Also several claimed [[Service star]]s for his campaign awards.]] In later years, Hubbard made a number of claims about his military record that do not reconcile with the government's documentation of his service years.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lronhubbardfakedd214.gif image of Hubbard's fake DD-214] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lronhubbardrealdd214.gif image of Hubbard's actual DD-214]</ref>

    and

    The Church of Scientology has circulated a US Navy notice of separation (a form numbered [[DD214]], completed on leaving active duty) as evidence of Hubbard's wartime service. However, the US Navy's copy of Hubbard's DD214 is very different, listing a much more modest record.<ref name="MBTR"/> The Scientology version, signed by a nonexistent Lt. Cmdr. Howard D. Thompson, shows Hubbard being awarded medals that do not exist, boasts academic qualifications Hubbard did not earn, and places Hubbard in command of vessels not in the service of the US Navy. The Navy has noted "several inconsistencies exist between Mr. Hubbard's DD214 [the Scientology version] and the available facts".<ref>[http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/war-rec.htm Navy: Official - Hubbard's "record" *is* forged]</ref><ref>[http://www.spaink.net/cos/warhero/medals.htm Ron the War Hero: Hubbard's Medal's]</ref>[[Image:Hubbard Aut.png|thumb|right|300 px|Hubbard's authorized awards per his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lronhubbardrealdd214.gif DD-214].]]

    • It might be argued that some of the references in the removed text are unreliable sources. So far as I know, there is no exception to the three-revert rule for merely believing an unreliable source is being used, except in the case of a living person, which Hubbard is not. Even if this were the case, however, in each revert COFS has removed the sentence "However, the US Navy's copy of Hubbard's DD214 is very different, listing a much more modest record." which is supported by the cited source "Sappell, Joel (1990-06-24). "The Mind Behind The Religion". Los Angeles Times. p. A1:1. Retrieved 2007-04-23. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)" COFS seems to be arguing that if he/she does not choose to believe information even from a major metropolitan newspaper like the Los Angeles Times, he/she can not only remove it but violate 3RR to do so, judging by this talk page comment: "So don't try to "prove" something when your source OBVIOUSLY is some parroting journalist with no clue what he is talking about. COFS 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)"
    • COFS was already aware of the 3RR prior to this incident as he/she was blocked just two weeks ago because of it: [36].
    Bucket of whitewash confiscated for 2 days. yandman 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Nikola Smolenski reported by User:Noah30 (Result:no block, malformed report declined)

    Račak incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Very disruptive user.

    User:74.109.26.185 reported by User:amatulic (Result: No violation)

    User talk:74.109.26.185 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:74.109.26.185|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.109.26.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [37]
    • All reverts are the same: Anonymous user blanks own talk page (containing current-day warnings), and two others restore it. All have violated 3RR.

    Update: "Previous version reverted to" is now obsolete. User is engaging in talk now. However, both the anon user and two others (User:Bluezy and User:Bass fishing physicist) have violated WP:3RR in this edit war, so it's fair to block them all. -Amatulic 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to insert an outside opinion User:Bluezy and User:Bass fishing physicist appear, to me, to be reverting simple and obvious vandalism i.e. page blanking and thus have not violated 3RR. I was following this 'war' whilst avoiding becoming involved, having suffered the 3RR myself, :(. 82.3.93.146 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation: From the exception section in WP:3RR: "Normally, reverting by a user within their own user space". It has been proposed and failed to gain consensus that a user may be blocked for removing warnings from their own talk page. It is frowned upon, but not prohibited, to remove warnings from one's own talk page. For the other two users, I will assume good faith that they thought they were fixing vandalism. —dgiestc 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mshafqat reported by User:WilyD (Result:24H)

    Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mshafqat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • 1st revert: [38] This deletion is repeated: [39], although the second blanks additional content as well
    • 2nd revert: [40] This deletion is repeated: [41]
    • 3rd revert: [42] This deletion is repeated: [43]
    • 4th revert: [44] This deletion is repeated: [45]
    • All these edits occur between 5:39 and 6:46 on April 24
    • General Warning: [46]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [47]

    User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Sandpiper (Result: Page Protected, User blocked 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on R.A.B. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Folken de Fanel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    also

    Folken de Fanel was then reverted by a user not normally editing this page [48], but said user was in my judgement then intimidated into self reverting, see here:[49]

    I have never intimidated anyone. Sandpiper, please don't make bad faith accusations that can be seen as diffamation.
    Funpika was mistaken in reverting the article (and was certainly not in your "jugment"), and he freely admitted it when we discussed about it (as he had invited me to do on my talk page).Folken de Fanel 18:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has been warned previously about 3RR and banned for violation of 3RR on Horcrux, but considers that his actions are justified (see edit history comments). Sandpiper 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point, our interests are served by protecting the page to encourage discussion. That said, Folken de Fanel is fully aware of WP:3RR, and has chosen to disobey it. As such, I'm protecting the page and blocking Folken de Fanel for 24 hours. alphachimp 00:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Folken had done this before but I couldn't be bothered to post it here. The last time I did, on Horcrux, the article was blocked to his version and remains so. That's three articles he currently has blocked to his version. By all means let us play by the rules, but it seems to me the only lesson being taught here is that persistently breaking this rule is a succesfull tactic for pushing your own POV. People become very tired of being reasonable. Sandpiper 06:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eblem reported by User:PubliusFL (Result:Already blocked)

    Parker v. District of Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eblem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Also apparent disruptive edits to make a WP:POINT at 23:04, 23 April 2007 and 23:13, 23 April 2007 (latter may have been an attempted 8th revert that backfired).

    3RR warning in edit summary here, also removed a request to discuss changes and vandalism warnings from his talk page. PubliusFL 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has already been blocked for personal attacks by Coelacan, so a 3RR block is superfluous. // Sean William 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zubenzenubi reported by User:Paul Cyr (Result:No violation)

    Windows Vista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Criticism of Windows Vista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zubenzenubi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Although two separate pages, user has repeatedly reverted the same content on both of them well over 3 times combined. Not 3 reverts on the same page, but 4 reverts on the same issue and obvious edit warring, despite attempts by others and myself to discuss the issue.

    Windows Vista

    • Previous version reverted to: 11:02

    Criticism of Windows Vista

    • Previous version reverted to: 10:56

    User:Yaf reported by User:MiFeinberg (Result: No violation)

    Gun Control Act of 1968 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This user has repeatedly reverted to include a paragraph that I believe is highly suspect -- it states that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was modeled after a Nazi Germany gun confiscation act. The source cited, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, is not neutral, but is a politically motivated site, not an academic or neutral source.

    That notwithstanding, the user has reverted three times within 24 hours:

    Violating the 3RR requires more than three reverts within a 24 hour period. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mais oui! reported by User:67.101.243.74 (Result: Warning)

    Craig Ferguson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mais oui! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    The user initially removed a link to Scottish people replacing it with Scotland. When I requested to discuss the change, the user did not respond. His edit summary cited a policy that I pointed out does not exist. I waited several days before requesting again that he discuss the change. He continued to not respond. In an effort to compromise despite his lack of cooperation, I included a link to the Scottish people article by including brief, additional, and relevant new information including the link. He reverted it. I started a second discussion on his talk page. He continued to ignore it and reverted the change on the article page. I reverted two times over several days, each time reminding the editor that he must communicate rather than bully his want to not include the link. He has most recently called my edit "spam" on behalf of a "pet article/project" in spite of the fact that I have never edited that article. He has also violated 3RR by reverting my edits to the page. This could be viewed as edit warring. If that is the determination, the offending editor must still be made to discuss changes with editors, including myself, rather than repeatedly reverting and ignoring them. I have made every conceivable effort to effectively communicate with this delinquent editor.

    Here are the two previous versions for which the editor cited a non-existent policy in his edit summaries:

    And here are my repeated requests for discussion with the offender:

    Note: This note was inserted after the result had been determined in this report for reference purposes. The above second talk page discussion of User talk:Mais oui! were deleted along with a third, later section by Mais oui! with this edit.

    Note: Offending user, Mais oui! has only the last three reversions in the past 24 hours, however, the 3RR policy also provides for users who have made repetitive reversions in a short period and are demonstrably either disruptive or likely to continue to revert. Mais oui is certainly likely to continue to revert and, between his complete disregard for communication with other editors (see linked discussions above) and his multiple previous 3RR blocks he is also demonstrably disruptive.

    Hasn't violated 3RR, but warned for edit warring and asked to engage in discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Limboot reported by User:Liftarn (Result: Blocked 24 hours 3RR)

    Islamophobia

    Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Limboot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Not to defend Limboot's actions but Liftarn also broke 3RR. See the report below. KazakhPol 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Antisemitism

    Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Limboot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comment: Having edited these pages today, I will recuse myself from blocking, but this editor has been warned, and continues to violate WP:3RR egregiously. -- Avi 15:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Wnjr reported by User:Simon Dodd (Result: Article protected)

    • Following an edit war involving whether a particular statement should be included in a section of an article, I determined that it would be better to simply eliminate the entire section as non-notable, and so edited the article. user:Wnjr reverted this edit at 22:10, 22 April 2007, see [50], to a version that did not include the disputed statement.
    • I edited the newly-constituted article to replace the disputed statement, see [51]; user:Wnjr removed this text at 10:18, 23 April 2007, an action which appears to fall within the definition of a "revert" for purposes of WP:3RR noted above.[52]
    • I again replaced the disputed text, see [53]; user:Wnjr responded by carrying out a direct and plain revert at 13:03, 23 April 2007, see [54]
    • Concluding that user:Wnjr was unwilling to accept either the removal in toto of the section, or the presence of the disputed text, I tried a halfway house, removing the bulk of the section and summarizing very briefly its contents. user:Wnjr responded by carrying out an undisputable revert at 09:19, 24 April 2007, see [55], eliminating my re-write.
    • Lacking any other alternative, I reverted.[56]

    While I realize that the time lapse between user:Wnjr's first and fourth revert is slightly more than 24 hours, I ask for a somewhat lenient application of the rule, particularly since it seems apparent that user:Wnjr has specifically timed their most recent reversion to evade the rule. I have also requested full protection for the page.[57] Simon Dodd 13:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The text you repeatedly added to the page is irrelevant and unsourced, there is no evidence provided that Valenti wrote her book after the initial controversy, and this seems implausible, given that she was promoting it in October 2006 e.g.[58], and the link between this and Franke-Ruta's appearance on bloggingheads.tv is entirely your own opinion, and has no place in wikipedia. Your current revision of the controversy section is entirely unreferenced (which is particularly apparent in the phrase "Althouse's critics on the left" - Who does this refer to? On the left according to whom?) unlike the text you deleted, and even dates the incident as happening in 2005.
    Also, according to your timeline above you are yourself in breach WP:3RR!
    Wnjr 17:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: Article protected by Majorly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lovelight reported by User:StuffOfInterest (Result:2 weeks)

    September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lovelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comment: (As I was about to report this, as well....)
    1. All times UTC -4
    2. The changes were almost identical, but, even disregarding that, reverts 4 and 5 were reverts to "revert" 3, making 4 clear reverts.
    — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • User has history of 3RR on WTC-related articles, and was blocked for 1 week already due to 3rr. Given 2 weeks this time to hopefully review 3RR in detail. -- Avi 17:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Liftarn reported by User:KazakhPol (Result:Warned)

    Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [59]

    Definitely not a new user and was clearly aware of how the policy works since he reported Limboot a few reports above this one. KazakhPol 18:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect it was inadvertent while trying to contain the out-of-control editor Limboot on 3 articles (and spreading). --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Inadvertent? It was an edit war between them. It was hardly inadvertent. KazakhPol 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and if you look at the edit history[60] it's easy to see why I missed it. I thought Ruthiekm reverted befor I did making my revert a null revert. Well, even experienced editors makes misstakes. // Liftarn

    User:Zyxoas reported by User:DawnTreader (Result:malformatted report declined)

    Languages_of_South_Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zyxoas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [61]
    Comment: Zyxoas has also resorted to personal derision. He has been warned several times over a long period in various language articles. He has also overridden the consensus achieved through discussion. He has also made comments about "owning" the article and talk page. He has taken it upon himself to revert pages across several articles, including Sotho_language. Any sanction should apply to those edits as well. In a nutshell, Zyxaos insists that several Bantu African language names should have the same word in English as in the native language. For example, he insists that "Northern Sotho" be referred to as "Sesotho sa Leboa", which of course is absurd!

    User:Noah30 reported by User:Medule (Result:48 hours; article protected)

    Račak incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Noah30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:42 24 April


    1. revert [05:53 24 April]

    2. revert [24 April]

    3. revert [20:14 24 April]

    4. revert [20:20 24 April]

    User:Asams10 reported by User:K1ng l0v3 (Result: 24 hours)

    Walther P22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Asams10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bramlet Abercrombie reported by User:Leflyman (Result:No action)

    Bramlet Abercrombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 1st revert: 04:53, 23 April 2007
    2. 2nd revert: 06:01, 23 April 2007
    3. 3rd revert: 10:27, 23 April 2007
    4. 4th revert: 07:00, 24 April 2007
    5. 5th revert: 11:34, 24 April 2007
    • Per WP:BLP policy, contentious, controversial content was moved from the Jimmy Wales bio to Talk:Jimmy Wales#Moved from article for discussion and clean-up; an RFC was further opened for more input; this editor has chosen to ignore stipulations of BLP, and charge on ahead with reinsertion/reversion. (Note: As for my removal of the content, BLP makes clear, "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. ") User has been warned on his talk page.
    • WP:3RR: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system." --LeflymanTalk 23:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 1st revert (of ongoing series): 05:01, 23 April 2007
    2. 2nd revert: 09:22, 23 April 2007
    3. 3rd revert: 10:28, 23 April 2007
    4. 4th revert: 21:48, 23 April 2007
    • Appears to be an in-progress edit-war over insertion of sources and content, to which this editor has been a party for weeks.
    • I don't believe 3RR applies to removal of blatant spam/vandalism. I am reverting someone who keeps spamming links to bhutantimes.com everywhere. (Note that the reporting user had nothing to do with the Bhutan articles, but stalked my contributions to find something to report.) Bramlet Abercrombie 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: the reversions were not "simple and obvious vandalism", but included content disputes. Additionally, WP:HARASS#Types_of_harassment, points out: "[Stalking] does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."-LeflymanTalk 23:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does include, though, looking at logs for the purpose of finding something to "get at" another user. And it's not a content dispute, it's a spammer with the single purpose of promoting his non-notable website. Bramlet Abercrombie 00:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Either you can both be blocked for edit warring or I can just say "no action" and not do any thing with this stale report. John Reaves (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (Result: No violation)

    3RR violation on a template which seemed to suit the user's own ends at WP:uF and is other discussions. User is rampantly implimenting {{coord}} and micoformats, often against many a users' wishes.

    1. Initial edit- 20:48, 19 April 2007
    2. 1st revert - 22:07, 19 April 2007
    3. 2st revert - 22:11, 19 April 2007
    4. 3st revert - 22:19, 19 April 2007

    The anon also violated WP:3RR, but Pigsonthewing ought to know better IMO. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 01:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Referral to the talk page would have shown those reverts to involve apparent vandalism; and the matter to be resolved. lewisskinner's bizarre "microformats" comments, above, are unwarranted and seem to be part of what is increasingly looking like a vendetta. Andy Mabbett 07:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vlad fedorov reported by User:Piotrus (Result:article protected)

    Institute of National Remembrance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The user has been blocked for 3RR and incivility in the past days; his last block had a duration of 72h. He has been warned by others about not breaking 3RR again very recently (User_talk:Vlad_fedorov#IPN). As can be seen from a longer view of his contribs, immediatly after his most recent block expired, he is continuing revert warring on (mostly) the same old articles. So far the only thing he seems to have learned is to try oto make less self-evident reverts...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Misrepresentation, not uncommon in using admin boards to win content disputes. The article was clearly not revert warred but WP:BRD. The talk page discussion was and remains ongoing and this is anything but a revert war. Also, the user has shown significant signs of improvement since his past blocks and we should encourage that as he is obviously contributing valuable content that he actually writes (see his contributions). Suggest no action and a reprimand for an attempt to win a content dispute in an inventive way. --Irpen 06:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, "reverts" 3, 4 and especially 2, are rewrites not reverts with the talk page discussion taking into account. As per talk page suggestions, the user implements the inegration of the content of the section he added earlier (disapproved by his opponent) into the article flow thus tightening the article and developing it. --Irpen 06:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also would like to note that me edits are not "sterile edit war" it is evident that it is Piotrus who deletes information supported by reliable source which he doesn't like. Pay attention to his ridiculous explanation for his reverts diff. He wrote that he reverts "rv - per Internet brigades, Russian newspapers are not reliable when describing Polish-Russian relations, this is unnecessary detail". However this particular user - Piotrus, created and edited articles on Russian-Polish relations based on Polish sources. He presents the history of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine only from Poland POV. Now, I have attempted to introduce into this article Russian, Italian and even Polish POV - and his explanation is conspiracy theory about KGB teams working in the internet? I belive this is a personal attack on me. Please see also history of the Institute of National Remembrance article, prior to me user Piotrus also had problems with user Jadger and as is in my case user Piotrus was also reverting additions on criticism of IPN. I think that user Piotrus activities are an example of WP:TEND and pursue the single goal -- to push the Polish POV above all others. Vlad fedorov 13:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Irpen's assessment. There is a productive discussion on the talk page and the edits of Vlad do not look like blind revert but like a WP:BRD cycle. I might be biased here so I would left the final decision upon a more neutral administrator Alex Bakharev 06:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Only misrepresentation here is by users supporting his POV. Information was restored four times in 24h; much of it the same. It is clear 3RR violation and besides, 3RR is not a vote. And I never heard that explaining your reverts (or insulting others...) at talk gives you freedom from 3RR...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  08:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to note that user Piotrus used to comment on my Polish language fluency diff. I regard it as a personal attack. I am a graduate of Warsaw University and definitely could speak legal Polish fluently. I have a diploma of Polonicum Institute of Polish Language of Warsaw University. User Piotrus also constantly in every message says that I violate WP:NPA, e.g. "insulting others" etc. This report is made by Piotrus to prevent introduction of information which he personally doesn't like, although it is supported by reliable and valid sources. I also has introduced direct translation of Polish legislation which clearly states that IPN is a lustration body. Vlad fedorov 10:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a Request for Comments about Vlad_Fedorov behavior (alleged wikistalking) submitted by User:Colchicum - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov. User:Vlad fedorov also continue edit warring on Boris Stomakhin article. This article is currently in the process of Cabal negotiations initiated by Vlad_Fedorov: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin. But he did not want to wait for the end of negotiations (mediator promised to propose a compromise version), and instead started edit warring. Biophys 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC) So, I disagree with the assessment of Alex and Irpen. I must admit that all this discussion participants (including me) are seem to be involved in a kind of editorial argument. So, outside opinions would help. Biophys 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And what relation to current issue it has? User Biophys previously was given two warnings for 3RR violation on Boris Stomakhin and Operation Sarindar by Seraphimblade. Biophys has been blocked for disruptive activities and there is a Request for Comments about Biophys behavior (alleged wikistalking) submitted by User:Vlad fedorov - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biophys. So what? By the way now Biophys allegedly stalks me on the article Institute of National Remembrance which he never edited before and allegedly stalks me even there on 3RR board. Vlad fedorov 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion on who did what in the past is out of place here. This is a 3RR board. If Piotrus thinks that VF's contribution to this article is generally disruptive, he should move this to another board as he frequently does; when his attempt to push for his content opponent's sanction at one board fails or the comment he gets upon request does not support him, he starts it all over elsewhere. Did VF run a revert war or developed the article almost doubling its size? The latter. Was he ignoring the other POV or did he discuss a great deal at talk? The latter. Did the editor learn from his mistakes? I see many signs of it. Do we want to encourage the good development in the knowledgeable and productive editor? Yes, unless someone's unhappiness about POV diversity, the main asset of Wikipedia, results from the interest of having the WP as as agenda pushing tool rather than NPOV encyclopedia. Anyway, significant time passed since than. The user added a whole lot more in the article, caught an opponent playing tricks with sources, remained civil and otherwise helpful. I think it is time to close the narrow 3RR issue and Piotrus may proceed elsewhere with his more general complaints as he did previously. --Irpen 16:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As happened before multiple times, in the middle of the editing dispute and out of nowhere the anon or new IP account appears out of the blue to "help" Piotrus as we speak. This, however, belongs to this Arbcom where it will be added. --Irpen 17:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: this is a 9RR now (although playing devil's advocate note that only 6-7RR span 24h)...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Again false, but I requested Vlad at his talk to leave the article alone in any form as long as it is tagged disputed since Piotrus and some unknown puppets are clearly shooting not for the article development but to do anything to have the opponent blocked. This complex matter belongs to the ongoing ArbCom of Piotrus where it will be added. Article's semiprotection to stop the strange ongoing editing is advised though. --Irpen 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for intervening here, but I understand very well User Piotrus. Vlad was following my edits for months, so I know him very well. It is my personal opinion (see also RfC by Colhicum) that Vlad creates no useful content in WP but only follows me and other users. I agree with Irpen that Vlad has changed his behavior recently. Previously, he usually deleted referenced content from articles created by others (as one can see in the history of articles Nikolai Koltsov, Persecution of political bloggers, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews and many many others). Now he is acting differently. He inserts some referenced but almost irrelevant information in articles created by others, marks them as "totally disputed", inserts word "alleged" several times in every sentence, etc. This makes articles much worse than before. An example of the latter are articles Institute of National Remembrance, (by Piotrus) and GRU and Operation Sarindar. For example, Operation Sarindar is about weapons of mass destruction, but Vlad inserts information about conventional weapons controversy, which makes an already complicated story completely unreadable. Understandably, this causes frustration of other editors who worked hard to create good articles, as in this case of Institute of National Remembrance article.Biophys 15:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure why nobody did anything with this report, and I'm sorry it took me so long to look at this, but I think any blocks at this point would be viewed as punitive. I locked the article for a while while the edit war was going on; I have now unlocked it and I hope some discussion (or, if necessary, dispute resolution) can be started. I will also keep an eye on the article and will block for edit warring without further warnings if need be. Hopefully that won't be necessary. Kafziel Talk 01:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Louispgagne reported by User:Tristan.buckmaster (Result: 48 hours, article protected)

    ACN Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Louispgagne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    This user has reverted the page four times:

    The user has been recently banned because of the three reverts policy. I have tried to merge his information with the previous version, without success. The user has been warned on numerous occasions has failed to discuss his changes on the talk page, instead resorting to personal attacks and vandalising the page with blanking. Tristan.buckmaster 08:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally the user could have violated the conflict of interest (WP:COI) guidelines, since it is clear from his posts to the discussion of ACN inc. that he is involved with ACN inc. So in summary he has violated the three-revert rule again after being previously banned, he has been involved in vandalism, he has made personal attacks and he has violated the conflict of interest guidelines. A lengthy ban I believe would be appropriate as he does not seem to get the message that his behavior on wikipedia is not appropiate. Tristan.buckmaster 10:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • User just came off a 24 hours block for 3RR on this article, so they have been re-blocked for 48 hours. Because of revert warring and to avoid favoring either side in the dispute, I have fully protected the article for 48 hours. —dgiestc 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:sdpate reported by User:zanimum (Result:Indef)

    Disability rights in Prince Edward Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). sdpate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has been adamant that he wants his way or the highway, and has been raising completely unfounded rumours about me, and now is wanting to remove his content, as keeping it up would be a violation of copyright, in his opinion. He has also been break 3RR of Pat Binns.

    Blocked indef by Naconkantari for legal threats. John Reaves (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alex_Kov reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 48h)

    Rusyn_language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alex_Kov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Not a new user; see block log. Khoikhoi 05:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked earlier in the month for 3RR. Stepping up to a 48 hour block. ··coelacan 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alastair Haines reported by User:Hanse (Result:warned)

    Hypotheticals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Template {{essay-entry|Hypotheticals}} has been inserted into this article with a view to dealing with the inappropriate tone of some of the content (that template also proposed as an alternative). Although User:Alastair Haines has been advised of potential contravention of 3RR, this user has just reverted for the 4th time in a 24hr period. Hanse 14:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CINEGroup reported by User:asams10 (Result:24H)

    Walther P22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CINEGroup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also of interest, this editor had an Incident report filed about him yesterday: CINEGroup Incident (archive). MiFeinberg 18:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have revised the original edit, which was the wrong one. On the question at issue, that was itself a revert. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 24 hours. Dina 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bus stop reported by User:JJay (Result:31h)

    List of converts to Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Edit warring over inclusion of Bob Dylan on this list. User:Bus stop twice removed the Dylan entry completely, then added an editorial comment to the entry four times. Was reverted by four separate editors. User:Bus stop was blocked for 3RR earlier this week for edit warring over the same issue on the Bob Dylan page. --JJay 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RolandR reported by Isarig (Result:)

    Steven Plaut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    As the edits summaries indicate, the user is clearly aware that he is reverting each time. He is a serial edit warrior, and has resumed the edit war on this page as soon as it was unprotected. User is aware of 3RR and has been blocked for it in the past.

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

    Copt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lanternix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [71]

    The reversions are all the same, but there are more as you can tell by the edit history. He has been asked on the article's talk page to observe basic criteria regarding verifiability and original research, but continued to ignore these particular points saying essentially that he will simply continue to revert (without making any effort to source the claims that were challenged by other editors). I explained to him that this could be construed as disruptive editing. He is not a new user and has been warned about 3rr [72], but reverted at least twice again after that. — Zerida 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

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

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

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

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

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

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




<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=126457816"