Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:SeiteNichtGefunden reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 48 hours)

    Improvised explosive device (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SeiteNichtGefunden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note:SeiteNichtGefunden recieved 24 hour block for 3RR and vandalism on 14 May, 2007. Evilclown93(talk) 12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours for repeat offense, tendentious editing, and consistently referring to edits restoring the consensus version as "vandalism". MastCell Talk 20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mariam83 reported by User:Bouha (Result:24 hours)

    Berber people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bouha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    Please note that the user was warned about WP:3RR previously, but deleted this warning. This is the previous warning

    Please also note that this seems to be the same person (in Houston) as was blocked as User:68.90.246.113 for this exceedingly offensive edit Bouha 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bouha, interesting observation. On my personal page I found this edit on my personal page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Collounsbury where at the end there is an offensive (no skin off my nose really, but...) usage in Arabic implying a slur against black Africans. (collounsbury 13:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]


    User previously warned about 3RR, but deleted message from talk page.  Clerk note: This is the diff of the 3RR warning. Evilclown93(talk) 12:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, the warning noted by Evilclown93 was the second such warning, and was given after the violation. The beforehand warning was given at 12:49, 18 June 2007, as shown at the links given by Bouha and (in more standard format) by me, above. -- Lonewolf BC 13:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed Blocked for 24 hours. Evilclown93(talk) 15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mariam83 reported by collounsbury 12:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC) (Result:24 hours)

    Maghreb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mariam83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]

     Clerk note: Please specify exact page, version reverted to, at least diffs of the 4 reverts, and if the user is new, a diff of a 3RR warning. Evilclown93(talk) 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC) User refuses to discuss edits. UPDATE: Sorry first time have been moved to report.[reply]

     Clerk note: I've reformatted the report. Evilclown93(talk) 13:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Now, as I have properly seen this, the result is a warning, as the 3RR warning was issued after the 7 reverts in this case, specifically. Evilclown93(talk) 13:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken, Ec93, and that a mere warning to [User:Mariam83:Mariam83] seems like quite an under-response, given the true circumstances. As may be seen from the below, Mariam83 was first warned about 3RR two days ago, was warned again after having made four of the seven reverts to Maghreb today, but then went on to make the other three of them anyway. This troublesome editor has been breaking 3RR left and right across several articles, after being warned against it on 18 June. She(?) has also been making POV edits to the point of vandalism and against consensus, making personal attacks and being generally disruptive. -- Lonewolf BC 14:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am mistaken :(...It should be 48 hours. I'm alerting the first admin I see. Evilclown93(talk) 14:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First, apologies and thanks to Evilclown93 for the assistance on standardizing format. Second, wish to draw attention to the racist language that Bouha noted above in the separate complaint, as replicated elsewhere in talk pages. Quite inflammatory and odd. collounsbury 15:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Mahgreb violation, put into standard format:

    -- Lonewolf BC 14:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Confirmed Blocked for 24 hours. Evilclown93(talk) 15:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Muntuwandi reported by User:XGustaX (Result:Article Protected)

    Race and Genetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [2]
    • 1st revert: [3]
    • 2nd revert: [4]
    • 3rd revert: [5]
    • 4th revert: [6]
    • 5th revert: [7]

     Clerk note: You should have the diffs of the reverts, as it easier to judge... Evilclown93(talk) 14:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It takes two to edit war. If he has reverted it 5 times, that means the other person has to have reverted at least 4 times. I think this is better to protect and talk it out, discuss it instead of block both parties involved. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jinxmchue reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 48 hours)

    D. James Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jinxmchue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: The 3RR rule applies to every revert after the third one. Having 3 reverts in 24 hours, but not more, is not a violation. Evilclown93(talk) 16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours (repeat offense); there were several reverts after those listed above, including what appear to be 4 within a 24-hour frame, as well as a clear violation of the spirit of the policy and edit-warring against consensus. MastCell Talk 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Ilya1166 reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result: 48hr)

    Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ilya1166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • User has been previously blocked for 3RR (9RR in fact), and has been copiously warned for it (see talk page history; some conversation removed). I almost reported this user for violating 3RR just a few days ago, right after previous block, until I realized that he was reverting some clearly false information. This, however, is not clearly false, and he knows better, as he's been blocked.
    • If the duck test is not enough to prove the IP is the same person (I think it is), I'll file something at WP:CHU, if need be. However, I believe the evidence is strong enough. The Evil Spartan 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's wait for the checkuser results: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wassermann. The Evil Spartan 21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll not get a confirmation that a certain IP is a certain user... That's private information. Thanks/wangi 21:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For 3RR violation, and ban evasion, I most certainly will if it's the same person. The Evil Spartan 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's irrelevant, Ilya1166 (talk · contribs) alone has four reverts re-adding the category. Originally added by Daniil naumoff (talk · contribs)[8], reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4. Blocking for 48 hours. Thanks/wangi 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, well thank you. I hadn't realized that someone else originally added it first. The Evil Spartan 22:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.142.130.43 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:One IP blocked; another warned)

    Lee Harvey Oswald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.142.130.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP has already been blocked once for the same offense on the same article, and this user (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 12.150.11.25) has been blocked under multiple IP addresses and his/her behavior has resulted in the semi-protection of this and other articles. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Another sysop blocked this IP and I warned 70.109.54.8, a suspected sock of same.--Chaser - T 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.73.188.53 reported by User:Knverma (Result:)

    Quixtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.73.188.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Request you to please also look at what disruptions were reverted. It appears to me that those disruptions were made only to block my IP? 75.73.188.53 19:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And should some action not be taken for user who was constantly deleting information? 75.73.188.53 21:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Being a Quixtar distributor, 75.73.188.53 also has financial conflict of interest. This is apparent in his attempts to add too many corporate sites and claiming on talk page [9] that he (or Quixtar?) is not able to sell products because of controversies like in this article, and his belief [10] that this article should be used by people to know about cost effectiveness of products and other info for deciding whether to join the business. --Knverma 04:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JGoldwater reported by User:SigmaEpsilon (Result: 48hr)

    Fred Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JGoldwater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    User:JGoldwater reported by User:BigDT (Result: 48hr)

    Fred Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JGoldwater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is a single purpose account, the majority of whose edits have been to add this loaded claim to a biography of a living person. Thompson, a radio talk show host for ABC, did a radio spot for a company. The co-founder of this company had legal problems 10 years ago. As soon as the story broke, this guy was shown the door. All radio talk show hosts do hundreds of commercial spots - this story has nothing to do with Thompson. All neutral editors who have examined it have opined that the edit is inappropriate in a BLP. (Innuendo, bias, and undue weight, even if sourced, have no place in a BLP.) This SPA insists on readding the claim repeatedly, including twice after being warned on the article talk page of 3RR. --BigDT 19:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Undog and User:208.45.160.83 reported by User:Haemo (Result: article protected)

    Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Undog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 208.45.160.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I'm reporting both these users, since they've been edit-warring basically non-stop on this article for the past two days. It's impossible to edit it under such a circumstance. I'm also worried about some of the incivility in edit summaries like "lol, you don't even understand it Mr. 46 counts of rape.", "Need paragraph to explain to kids and idiot racists that not every charge is true – as you and others try to imply", "What the hell is "insourced" info. I think you mean "unsourced" info? ".

    The IP appears to be dynamic, and the edit-war is most of the recent history, so I'm protecting instead of blocking.--Chaser - T 01:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheManWhoLaughs reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: resolved)

    Batman & Robin (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -- Tenebrae 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor has received several warnigns (some now on his archived talk page) for his behavior, and was blocked for 12 hours yesterday.

    His first edit in this instance, flagged for fannish, non-encyclopedic tone, was made at 20:42, 19 June 2007 . His reversions follow:

    I would like to say that I only reverted the article because im trying to help it. He is just trying to pick a fight with me because he thinks he can get me in trouble. TheManWhoLaughs 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Other sysops: No blocks yet, please. Trying to resolve this here first.--Chaser - T 00:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.247.110.93 reported by User:Enviroboy (Result: no action)

    Fellatio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.247.110.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a technical violation here, but the IP is now discussing at his/her talk page and the article talk, so I'm inclined to let this go unless there's another reversion.--Chaser - T 01:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. This user reverted six times in total (within less than 1.5 hours) but only once after I posted the warning. He/she now seems to be content with discussing the article rather than continuing the edit war. ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Misou reported by User:Stan En (Result: no block)

    Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5 reverts within 8 hours by Misou !!! he was already warned. He filed a complain against RookZero and me here -- Stan talk 01:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Technical violation, but Misou has gone to talk page, so let's see how this shakes out.--Chaser - T 01:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ok just read your comments . I agree ! -- Stan talk 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Itaqallah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    All from June 20:

    • 1st revert: 13:18 straight revert of this diff: 10:38
    • 2nd revert: 21:11 reverting this diff: 03:21, June 18
    • 3rd revert: 22:09 reverting the previous two diffs to this version: 21:11
    • 4th revert: 23:27 He again removed the same two sentences from the Jihad section. He shoved something like them lower down the article, but this is still a revert.
    • 5th revert: 23:47 where he undid part of this diff: [11] from June 16th, where I added the word “worldwide.”

    Itaqallah is a very experienced editor has been very active at this article for weeks, he just went too far today. Arrow740 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't checked the diffs closely but the first diff was discussed before in detail and a consensus was achieved. I don't call that diff a revert. The editor who added that has probably only one edit to this article. --Aminz 01:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Aminz once made that same change. I can dig it up if needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrow740 (talk • contribs)
    I apparently took the reverse position as Itaqallah took here. The issue was settled back then. --Aminz 01:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You two don't own the article. It's still a revert. Arrow740 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Arrow, you are really stretching it when it came to reverts. Every edit that removes so much as a letter is undoing part of another edit (because obviously someone had to put it there in the first place). Thus, to suggest someone is "reverting" an edit made a couple days ago is questionable. Itaqallah is not the only party that has been involved in edit-warring recently. I was considering protecting the article, but I don't believe that would be a good idea just two days before the article's supposed to make its Main Page appearance. On that note... can you all please simmer down, at least for the upcoming days? -- tariqabjotu 02:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you guys are all being pretty lenient today. This is five solid reverts, but no block. Changing "worldwide domination" to "dominance" when I had changed it the other way a couple days ago is certainly a revert. Strange that you didn't block him, tariqabjotu. Arrow740 03:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Four very obvious reverts and another one which was not so obvious, but still a revert. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweak to 24 hours since the last two were consecutive and thus actually 4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I must agree with Aminz above that the first diff should definitely not be considered as part of an edit-war, which is what this page - and this rule - is for. There is now and has long been overwhelming consensus on Talk:Islam that Itaqallah's edit is correct. The notion that "Islam" means "peace" is nothing but a popular misconception. It is perverse to punish anyone for removing ranks falsehoods from mainspace even if they act alone: how much less sense this makes when the edit followed discussion and a clear and longstanding consensus. Indeed, I would be extremely surprised to learn that Arrow740 himself disagreed with this edit (do you, Arrow?) This is not WP:AN/GOTCHA!, and it should not have been included in this report. As the last two diffs were consecutive, that makes only three reverts: Itaqallah should be unblocked.Proabivouac 05:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Aminz argued for it before and it is possible to make a bad case for it from the sources. There have been revert-wars about this same topic recently. The point is that itaqallah has not followed the rules and is deleting sourced, topical material from Islam while simultaneously staying at 3 reverts in other places to keep blog postings in articles. Arrow740 06:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1st revert should be discounted per evidence presented here. → AA (talk • contribs) — 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Eleemosynary reported by User:Crockspot (Result: page protected)

    User:Willie Peter (edit | [[Talk:User:Willie Peter|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eleemosynary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Eleemosynary has made at least eight reverts today to User:Willie Peter, all of them attacking three editors without cause or any kind of real evidence. I'm not well versed on the use of sock templates, but I believe that these are being improperly applied as well.

    User has two previous blocks for 3RR, so is aware of the policy.

    As a view of the diffs will show, each revert made restored warning templates to the above-mentioned user's (most likely, a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Crockspot) User page, and explanation of the actions to his Talk page. As restoring blanked warnings is reverting vandalism, 3RR does not apply. As restoring comments that elucidate warnings is not vandalism, 3RR does not apply. Alas, another attempt by Crockspot (and his various other identities) to game the system has gone down in flames.
    User:Willie Peter is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet created, most likely, byUser:Crockspot with the past 24 hours as a way to circumvent 3RR on the George Soros page. I have indicated as such on Willie_Peter's user page, and he has removed all the warnings on the talk and user pages using the exact same language and bluster that Crockspot usually does. Restoring warnings and reverting vandalism do not violate 3RR. This report is an attempt to game the system by Crockspot/Willie_Peter. Diffs to come. Stay tuned. Eleemosynary 03:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're making some pretty bold claims with zero evidence to back it up. You're harrassing and attacking three editors in one edit. You need a time out. - Crockspot 03:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs, and your edit history, give compelling evidence of your actions. I'm harassing no one, and I'm beginning to think one, and only one, editor is involved here, and it's you. Stop trying to game the system. You're going to continue to be called on it. Eleemosynary 03:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the diffs... the diffs... Which diffs were you referring to? My "bogus claim" is that you have repeatedly and still continue to revert another user's page. Oh, and that you continue to personally attack me and attempt to damage my good reputation. Do you guys plan these Jeremiah Johnson-esqe attacks over email, or what? Did you draw the short straw this week? - Crockspot 03:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to review the George Soros talk page for the diffs in question. I'd be happy to post them here. Yes, I have reverted (and will continue to revert) your removal of warnings on your sock/meatpuppet's user page. Your removing them is vandalism. As for your "good reputation," nothing in your edit history points to this. As for your tirade, it appears you've grown frustrated with being found out. If you'd only refrain from trying to game the system, you might find your editing here less stressful. Cheers. Eleemosynary 03:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please some one stop this out of control vandal, Eleemosynary. Now the simple questions that begs in this is... no matter what article I choose to start to edit, those <owners> WP:OWN (in which Eleemosynary seem to be following that M.O.) will accuse me of being somebodies "sock puppet", Yes? So, please tell Eleemosynary stop being a WP:DICK Willie Peter 03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    Wow... two full-throated (although incorrect) cites of Wiki policy from an account not yet one day old. You're fooling no one. Eleemosynary 03:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You must have watched to many Johnny Carson shows with Carnac the Magnificent. Do you place your RJ45 cable in you ear WP:Beans and pop these truths out? It's clear your agenda and any one with common sense can see.Willie Peter 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you even filed a checkuser request yet? I'd like to clear this up as soon as possible. You're wasting my time. - Crockspot 04:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your breathless exhortations to "run a checkuser" on yourself have, thankfully, narrowed down your ruse. Thanks for letting us know you're actually using a meatpuppet. That should save some time. Eleemosynary 04:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you wiki-slander? I'm don't know Crockspot, never meet him, I don't have any outside contact with him. So, is this your way to bully new editors you don't agree with? It would seem you have been empowered to continue this, with out stop of control. So much for WP:AGF.Willie Peter 04:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your grammar was better when you were posting as Crockspot. Eleemosynary 04:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Chaser, I see your point in protecting that page. The admins can sort out the diff history, and the serial blanking, before long. I'd ask you to keep an eye on meatpuppet Willie Peter, as he seems intent on blanking warnings, and even legitimate comments on this very page. To be continued. Eleemosynary 04:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Did anyone notice the "Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic." at the top of this page. Let's try to follow that.--Chaser - T 04:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No argument from me. I'm going to bed. - Crockspot 04:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've protected this page. This is a fairly pointless template when we have checkuser (which may or may not be appropriate here). Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets is that way.--Chaser - T 04:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks far more like a meatpuppet, as Crockspot has been running the "please run a checkuser on me" goad all evening. If Willie Peter appears again to continue reverting pages on which "Crockspot" and "Bellowed," are flirting with 3RR, that's gonna be pretty damning. Eleemosynary 04:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of flirting with 3RR, very nicely done just now, how you narrowly avoided violating 3RR on Bill Moyers. You seem to be an expert at it. You go sort your diffs now. I'm done here tonight. - Crockspot 05:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I didn't even use a meatpuppet. Thanks for stopping in to say you're "done" for the second time. Eleemosynary 05:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WookMuff reported by User:Thejermdotorg (Result: 24 hours)

    LiveJournal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WookMuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [12]

    This is a long existing user that should know about the 3rr. --Jerm (Talk/ Contrib) 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 13:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:70.105.50.115 reported by User:Nescio (Result: article protected)

    Movement to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.105.50.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite my warning he violated 3RR[23] user continues reverting while removing the warning[24] which is evidence he has seen it. As an aside for the same behaviour[25] the page was semi-protected several days ago because the IP then started alternating its address to circumvent 3RR. Maybe again semi? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This was an all-around edit war without good attempts by anyone on the talk page, so I'm treating everyone equally by protecting it.--Chaser - T 23:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Otto4711 reported by User:172.144.51.199 (Result: no violation)

    User talk:Otto4711 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Otto4711|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Otto4711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Comment: User is removing, not archiving, remarks citical of him. First Otto4711 removed the comments from the original poster, but when I restored them as a neutral third party, Otto4711 again removed them. He has reverted at least four times within less than 24 hours from 1630 on the 20th to 347 on the 21st. As can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Otto4711 this user has been blocked twice before for 3rr violations and also deletion review trolling (there is also some critism of the user's AfD editing on the talk page as well). The user should not remove warnings and address criticism from previously unblocked editors rather than just delete it.

    Editors are permitted to remove warnings from their talk pages. Archiving is preferred, but there's no policy mandate. There's also a 3RR exception for userspace.--Chaser - T 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Estevanbonilla reported by User:Kingjeff (Result: mild warning)

    Mexico national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Estevanbonilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The 1st revert comes from this edit I made deleting news. Wikipedia is not here to provide news. News is against Wikipedia policy. Kingjeff 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor is almost brand new and hadn't been warned, so I left a very mild warning on his talk page and a message on Kingjeff's talk page. I think this situation could have been handled a lot better.--Chaser - T 05:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rillian reported by User:Jimfbleak (Result: no vio)

    This user keeps (five times so far) adding a spammy dab to Black Swan in addition to the existing dab. I could block, but since I've reverted twice, I'm a bit close. I'd welcome any assistance. Jimfbleak

    This is spread out over three days, so it isn't a violation. I'll direct recent parties to the talk page.--Chaser - T 04:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zeragito reported by User:Gyrofrog (Result: 24h)

    Ethiopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeragito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [30]

    User is technically already in violation, but was not formally warned until after the 6th revert. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I am not actively involved in editing Ethiopia, but I do keep it on my watchlist, and may be too closely involved to have blocked him myself. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24 hours and stern message coming on talk page.--Chaser - T 05:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Badagnani reported by User:TDC (Result: blocks)

    National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: As an experienced editor Badagnani should be well aware of the rules involving 3RR. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Badagnani blocked 36 hours for second 3rr violation. TDC blocked three days for parole violation and umpteenth 3rr violation.--Chaser - T 02:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:=CJK= reported by User:Bignole (Result: blocks)

    Hannibal Lecter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Time reported: 22:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    CJK was caught in an edit war with another editor. They both technically broke the 3RR in the heat of the moment, and were subsequently warned about said action. What I am reporting is CJK's disregard for that warning as he alone continued to play the revert game after his first warning. He was eventually warned more than once, because he blanked his talk page to make it appear as though no one had warned him.

    Reverts

    At this point, User:HalfShadow warned CJK for conducting an edit war on the page.

    Reverts after the warning
    Reverts after warning (cont.)

    The article was initially protected, but admins then blocked two participants in the edit war.--Chaser - T 00:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Levine2112 reported by User:Avb (Result: warning)

    Osteopathic medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: No recent warnings but this editor is well aware of the 3RR rule and has been blocked before. AvB ÷ talk 00:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This has gone to the talk page. I'm going to let it ride for now, but next revert earns a block.--Chaser - T 00:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    UserIP:24.185.105.199 reported by User:Badagnani (result: blocks)

    Sesame chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Badagnani 01:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1st revert:

    [47]

    • 2nd revert:

    [48]

    • 3rd revert:

    [49]

    • 4th revert:

    [50]

    COMMENT FROM 24.185.105.199 All of my edits to Sesame Chicken were to remove copyvio links placed by the editor who is reporting me, and to improve the article. I've added ingredients, removed some inaccurate info and tagged for cleanup. User:Badagnani is just upset that I won't let him add a photo that by his own admission he is not the rightsholder of. 24.185.105.199 01:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24.185 blocked for 24 hours. Badagnani's previous block for 3rr extended to 48 hours.--Chaser - T 02:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HeadMouse reported by User:Metros (Result: 72hr block)

    Walt Disney World Monorail System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HeadMouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has recent blocks for incivility, disruption, and 3RR on the same page. This all has occurred within a couple of hours of the full protection on the article expiring. Metros 02:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It may also be worth noting that the editor in question kept the promise [51] he made after his last block, to "fight my side of the battle" upon his return. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    3rd or 4th edit war this month, suggest 84+ hour block. --trey 02:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His personal attacks continue this moment. --trey
    I've seen enough. HeadMouse is blocked for 72 hours. - KrakatoaKatie 02:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sosomk reported by User:Tamokk (Result: No block)

    Georgia (country) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sosomk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [52]

    Sosomk is again revert warring, failing to come to the talk page, while, after being blocked over the article several times, technically he is not violating 3RR. 1) Recently Sosomk uniliterally initiated a voting on the talk page of the article to revert (small) edits I had made to the economy section. I complied with the result of the voting, despite that Sosomk's economy section was disputed for factual inaccuracy and POV, and that except agitating for his version, he failed to answer arguments and was incivil. Now I have written a new and expanded section, which again is being reverted by S. without any merit. 2) Sosomk also had changed the etymology section of the article, promoting something what a medieval theologian has stated to a fact status, and downgrading scientifically referenced material to an alternative. Despite that he was given an explanation he pushes rv on this issue too.

    As Sosomk has a long history of rv warring and being incivil, I ask for an administrator familiar with the backstory to consider the case. Tamokk 03:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please pursue dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Russianname reported by User:hillock65 (Result: Page protected)

    Battle of Konotop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Russianname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user wages revert war while the mediation that I initiated is still underway. I also requested the full protection on the article on a separate board. He has been warned against waging revert wars [55] and was previously banned for the same wage war but on a user talk page. Doing this while mediation is in progress is unacceptable. --Hillock65 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Russianname doesn't want to disscuss the problems of the article and still does things in a Bad Faith, neglecting views of others editors and accusing them groundlessly in anti-Russian sentiments. Please calm down this edit warrior.--Alex Kov 13:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, your content dispute has been raging ever since the page appeared. Don't you think that something is wrong with it? Anyway, let's hope that some trigger-happy sysop will not reign in clubbing those users who discuss content and strive to achieve consensus. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have the impression that the report is without merit. Both parties indulge in a revert war, although, unlike Alex Kov, Russianname contributes some content as well. He has made efforts to discuss the situation on talk. I hope the ongoing mediation will help defuse the situation. Having the page protected may help both parties to cool it. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if it isn't Ghirla, who jumps from one message board to the other advocating in bias for Russian editors[56] and harasssing admins[57] who dare to take action. Any user whatever natinality they are need to be treated the same. I was involved in mediation with Russianname and choose to stay off protracted revert war. He didn't and should be held accountable for it be he Russian or not. No amount of advocating by biased Russian editors should prevent from the rules of this community be followed. They are the same for everyone. --Hillock65 14:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you accuse me of "harrassing", you should launch a formal complaint. I take issue with your facile allegations of misconduct, as harrassing is a serious offense. As for Russianblock's first ever block, it was another fruit of your habitual forum shopping. It was not appropriate, as Masamage admitted. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that Alex Kov untagged the article that was discussed. So it is him who deserved penalty for reverting tag NPOV. --Russianname 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't it happen to you that some people deliberately provoke hot-tempered editors to revert-warring? Nobody would enter into details who is right and who is wrong and who triggered the conflict. If you revert more than three times, you will be blocked. Please take a cup of tea and reflect about it. The world is not going to collapse if the page is left without some tag for 24 hours. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hot-tempered? Is that the best exuse you can come up with for edit warring? Some preferred to stay off. I pleaded with him on the talk page[58] and on the article discussion page[59]. It is that he is used to muscle his way in, rather than engage in mediation that was going on. He was banned before for edit warring and didn't get the message then, maybe he will now. --Hillock65 14:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Russianname was never "banned" for anything. You were blocked simultaneously with him for the same offense, so it's sort of cheap to pontificate about the disruption caused by edit warring. Unlike you, Russianname does not maintain an attack page in his native wikipedia which instructs its editors to log in in English Wikipedia in order to "dePOV" a certain set of articles. It's no wonder that you and Alex have more opportunities for revert warring, under these circumstances. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I wasn't. You are confusing him with someone else. Check the record. Must be getting old. Also, please refrain from personal attacks, I understand that advocating for deliquent Russian editors is your main occupation here, but please support your wild allegations with facts. I do not maintain any message boards, if you have proof to the contrary - present it or lay off your assault on me. That seems to be the pattern, that everyone trying to make Russian editors accountable for their actions should be subjected to these character assassination attempts. Discuss the subject at hand and please and lay off your personal attacks. --Hillock65 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the sequence of reverts by Hillock and Alex Kov. Alex Kov reverted POV three times today: [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] This is called hypocrisy --Russianname 15:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That's right. I concur. You should've warned him and complained to the moderator or the admins. I warned that I requested page protection, this war needn't have happened. Unlike AlexK you were in a middle of mediation and have been warned just before your last revert. What did you choose to do with the warning? You just erased it[66] and went on with edit warring. --Hillock65 15:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AlexanderPar reported by User:Dacy69 (Result: 24 hrs)

    Ethnic minorities in Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AlexanderPar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Dacy69 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    While this user listed in this Arbcom case consideration of which is pending until final desicion on the acceptance of the case[67], this user continue edit warring on several pages. The page Ethnic minorities in Iran was particularly affected by user:AlexanderPar. He removes multisources information without discussion on the talkpage. He always goes on the brink of 3 reverts but it does not mean that action should be taken only for 4 reverts.

    • 1st revert: [68] - he partially removed referenced information
    • 2nd revert: [69] - further removal of information without discussion
    • 3rd revert: [70] - and now classic revert

    Please pay attention to his previous reverts and removal of information from this page: On June 20

    On June 19

    • [73] - another removal of infornation w/o discussion

    On June 15

    • [74] - first series of his removal
    • [75] - almost the same revert

    Only on June 15 he left short comments on talkpage. Besides, his reverts was combined with erverts of user:Zereshk and user:Houshyar. While formally he stays within 3rr I urge to consider the essence of his editing which is nothing than edit warring.

    Comment: This is a false report, and an abuse of 3RR notice board. The edit you have marked as "2nd revert" is a continuation of my previous edit. [76] Furthermore, I explained the rational for my edits both in the edit summery, and in details here. I also added back the UN statement [77]. The problem is your soapboxing on that page, and adding of biased non-notable or governmental sources that don't meet WP:RS and have no relevance to the specific topic. AlexanderPar 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You are removing a bulk of information without any discussion and reasonable excuse--Dacy69 23:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    User:CO19 reported by User:Kurt Shaped Box (Result: No block - user not warned)

    The Bill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CO19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [78]

    Plain and simple case of edit-warring against consensus with multiple users. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User warned. One more revert and he will be blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Atabek reported by User:AlexanderPar (Result: 48 hrs)

    Yeprem Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Atabek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • User:Atabek is subject to a 1RR revert parole (1 revert per week) by the decision of ArbCom[86]. However, User:Atabek has been edit-waring on several pages, and made 2 revisions to Yeprem Khan today within a few hours, clearly violating his 1RR revert parole:

    Comment user:AlexanderPar involved in aggressive edit warring on several pages, removes information without discussion. See my reports above.--Dacy69 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Good_friend100 reported by User:LactoseTI (Result: 72 hours)

    Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good_friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: A little complicated, reverting several changes, see below for descriptions. Main one is 03:08, June 13, 2007, a week old, but editor just came off a week long break for 3RR/edit warring ending with that very edit.

    As mentioned, editor has been blocked four or five times for 3RR in the past month, last one being for a week.

    Thanks for adding a notice on my talk page. Again, I feel that there is nothing wrong with the addition of the map. Also, as Komdori asked, I posted a thread for discussion as to why my map shold be included. Instead of understanding my viewpoint, you simply rush for the chance to block me again. It is YOU who should be filed a report against. Its not fair how you can't accept anything you don't like. Also, my "reverts" are not even clear cut, intentionally done reverting. You are taking advantage of my past blocks to give the impression that I am doing something really bad.
    To the administrator who reviews this, please note that I don't think I have done anything wrong or made reverts that were done intentionally in bad faith. I feel that LactoseTI should be punished as well because its totally not fair how he participates in edit warring but never is punished. Good friend100 03:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Checking the diffs, you are trying to report me using two different cases of the 3RR rule, which I don't think I even violated. You say its complicated, but in truth, I haven't been reverting over the same thing continuesly. Good friend100 03:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You've been through this before. You don't have to revert the same edit--reverts of any nature on the same article contribute to a 3RR. If you don't want to be blocked, then don't revert 5 times in 8 hours or so. It's true I reverted one time on that article today, but that's hardly edit warring. I'm not surprised you feel you've done nothing wrong. You say this every time you get blocked. —LactoseTIT 06:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 72 hours, per (some of) the evidence above. This is the user's fifth block. -- tariqabjotu 13:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sparrowman980 reported by User:huaiwei (Result: 24 hrs for both)

    World's largest airline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sparrowman980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has insisted on restoring the previous version of the article and claiming the contents has been deleted despite my repeated explanations that the information has been broken up into multiple pages.[87] [88]--Huaiwei 03:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He did not discuss it anough and thous he did disscuss with said that he shouldn't..... (Sparrowman980 04:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Quite contrary to his comments, there has been prior discussion on the said edit.[89] It seems odd that Sparrowman980 should consider my boldness as a good reason for edit warring in itself.--Huaiwei 04:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ned Scott reported by User:Shell Kinney (Result: 24 hours)

    Juice Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24 hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 13:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Domer48 reported by User:Setanta747 (Result:)

    Emma Groves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't warned the guy, but I think he's seasoned enough as an editor to be aware of the guidelines. I made an edit in good faith, to remove POV from an article, after which he accused me of being a POV editor. To be fair to him, he did try to offer dialogue, of a sort, on the article talk page, which I answered in kind.

    (1st revert) (diff from my initial copyedit

    Thank you. --Mal 09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Whats the difference between restoring and reverting information on an article? Is that the same as replacing the information? Regards --Domer48 10:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You tried to set me up for a 3RR but check! I was replacing vandlism by you, based on no conclusion to discussion! Around just long enough to cop on to you! I did not accuse you of being a PoV editor, I said you were! --Domer48 10:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So what.. you're adding insult to injury now? You didn't "cop on" to anything, by the way. The reasons for my edits were sound, and I explained them to you on the discussion page.
    This isn't a game - its an encyclopedia. --Mal 10:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chill Dormer. 3RR is a very hard rap to beat as it tends to be automatic if the reverts add up. I don't think the nature of the reverts are of much concern; and vandalism is tricky - I got caught in similar circumstances where I assumed I had a vandalism case but it turned out he was enforcing policy. I would call for no action here on the basis that you didn't realise that reverting what you thought was vandalism could be construed as 3RR. In the circumstances the lack of any warning is a serious issue; the warning requirement is precisely to prevent cases like this where you accidentally breach 3RR. I suggest you be more careful in future but a block isn't justified in this case. I would ask Mal/Setanta as a Veteran Editor to withdraw as a gesture of good faith to a relative newcomer. (Sarah777 10:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Sarah I'm afraid I must decline - particularly after Domer's last paragraph here. What a closing admin decides to do is another matter, but I definately felt like it needed to be taken to another forum, as Domer was refusing to listen to me. I have to say that I also never got a second chance when two or three like-minded editors basically ganged up on me with one article at a time when I was barely aware of any 3RR policy either. So I'll leave it up to what ever admin decides to look at it. --Mal 10:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hang on here a minute, User:Setanta747, suggests that they restored the article, that is a revert. Anyone can check the history on the article page. Regards--Domer48 11:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dormer, blame my technical incompetence but I can't trace the reverts - on either side. maybe get someone more proficient to look at it? (Sarah777 11:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    OK Mal, so maybe it has happened to us all; we live and learn. But from your comments you appear to have thought your 3RR event was unfair (as I did in my case). That isn't a reason for doling out the same medicine to another newcomer - the opposite surely? I know one thing I learned was that I'd make sure to give very clear warnings before reporting (as the record will show). Though I concede warnings are not very effective most of the time; still - they should be given. (Sarah777 11:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Re: "That isn't a reason for doling out the same medicine to another newcomer - the opposite surely?" Try not to put words into my mouth Sarah. --Mal 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I've dumped the entire log so we can look at it; is does, on the surface, appear that Dormer may have a point - it looks rather like four reverts. Mal, perhaps some explanation as to why think you didn't do 4 reverts would be helpful? I assume it is the 24-hour rule? Regards (Sarah777 11:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    1. (cur) (last) 10:10, June 23, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,572 bytes) (Inserted information removed prior to discussion conclusion. Rational POV motivated!)
    2. (cur) (last) 09:57, June 23, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (article restored to NPOV version: Please do not revert this again - I have explained my rationale.)
    3. (cur) (last) 09:07, June 23, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,542 bytes) (rv as per previous)
    4. (cur) (last) 01:23, June 23, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (Restored article to NPOV version. Domer48: watch your WP:NPA please.)
    5. (cur) (last) 08:44, June 22, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,542 bytes) (Rv Restored the information removed by POV editor)
    6. (cur) (last) 01:46, June 22, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (reverted article to a less-POV and more encyclopediac version)
    7. (cur) (last) 13:12, June 21, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,542 bytes) (Added page numbers removed POV tags from reference)
    8. (cur) (last) 08:41, June 21, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (6,573 bytes) (Replaced information which was removed because of POV of an Editor)
    9. (cur) (last) 08:39, June 21, 2007 Domer48 (Talk | contribs) (4,713 bytes) (Replaced information which was removed because of POV of an Editor)
    10. (cur) (last) 08:07, June 21, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,707 bytes) (re-added source by Vintagekits)
    11. (cur) (last) 08:05, June 21, 2007 Setanta747 (Talk | contribs) (3,645 bytes) (rv to non-POV version: Also - please do not remove the tags I added. There were several edits I made that were undone wholescale with no consideration for merit on individual basis.)
    I see three reverts. One more and Domer gets blocked. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reginmund reported by User:Maurauth (Result:Both parties agreed to discuss)

    Two violations, not sure how to report so I've pasted two templates.

    Iron Maiden (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Iron maiden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reginmund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Regimund account created on June 7, 2007. Has no 3RR warning either. Evilclown93(talk) 21:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Clerk note: Reginmund has 7 reverts, but Maurauth has 6. This is an edit war which seems to have ceased. Evilclown93(talk) 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
     Clerk note: Maurath has had 2 blocks for editwarring, one block for incivility (April-May 2007), and he agreed to abide by 1RR when unblocked in May. I suggest some sort of block for Maurath and a warning for Reginmund. Evilclown93(talk) 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agreed to 1RR with the one user on the issue that I was warring about. I have 6 reverts over a long period of time, not 24 hours, I was discussing it but he kept reverting. Also, see [[91]] for discussion and list of attempted resolutions on my part. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 21:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Matt57 reported by IP Address (Result:No block)

    Islam in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Matt57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor reverted 5 times inserting descriptions of a non-Muslim organization giving it more attention than any Muslim organization receives in the same article. He argues that its removal is vandalism but it is clear that this is a content dispute over undue weight. First he argued that the IP's were the sockpuppet of one editor, then apparently changed his mind and argued that they are the sockpuppet of another editor, and both allegations come without any proof. 140.113.134.33 20:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    These are block evading sock puppets of either His excellency (talk · contribs · block log) (more suspected) or Kirbytime (talk · contribs · block log). Reverting edits of users who try to evade blocks is not against policy. As you can see, he comes back with a new IP every time, proabbly using anonymous browsing to evade the blocks. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators should note that this user provides no proof for this accusation, nor have either of those two users ever edited the article in question. 217.232.177.205 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is coming back with a new IP every time. Here are some of the IPs he has used (this is Hix Excellency for sure): 86.74.6.82, 88.198.148.74, 84.151.168.136, 83.189.77.121 and now 217.232.177.205. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This destructive permabanned editor has recently forced admins to semi-protect Apostasy, Apostasy in Islam, Ibn Khaldun, and Jihad Watch. Something should be done to block this person permanently. Arrow740 21:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ** Will appreciate other admins opinion on this. At first hand it seems to be rv of vandalism, but I may be mistaken. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Its deletion of sourced material by an anonymous IP switching user, an obvious block evading sock puppet. Reverting edits of blocked sock puppets doesnt count for 3RR. If the question is whether this is user is a sock puppet, the answer is a confirmed yes because he comes back with a new IP every time. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also confirmed open proxies for 86.74.6.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 88.198.148.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.151.168.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 83.189.77.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Indefblocking these as well ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If there are any other IPs doing the same type of edits, drop me a line. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking the IPs! Will do. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User: Error1010 reported by User:Matt57 (Result: 24 hrs)

    List of notable converts to Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Error1010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This is probably a sock puppet of Kirbytime (talk · contribs · block log) or His excellency (talk · contribs · block log). He has spent most of today editing Wikipedia with various socks and anonymous open proxies.

    There is a good chance its HE now that the sheriff is out of town. Arrow740 00:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't think my fifth edit qualified as undoing the work of another editor. The first one is not a revert, I wasn't even registered when this material was inserted. Error1010 01:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It was 5 reverts actually, thanks for the reminder. You're a sock puppet of Kirbytime probably. A check user will be filed on you if you keep editing. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the threats. Error1010 01:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An editor with one day in Wikipedia, who knows the ropes too well to be a newbie, and edits in same pattern as previously blocked editors. 24 hrs. Please reconsider the way you participate in this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Domer48 reported by User:MarkThomas (Result:Dismiss)

    Great Irish Famine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Domer48 has also breached WP:CIVIL, accusing me of bad faith edits, POV and disruptive editing, none of which are correct. MarkThomas 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m more than happy for editors to review the recent discussions, and determine things for themselves. I would also like it to be bourn in mind my recent contributions, to this article, and the actions of this editor. For example review the section in question and suggest a title. --Domer48 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I asked Domer48 for an apology on his talk page before posting here; his response was to paste the private request for an apology into the talk page of the main article with a negative remark, and to append the phrase "ye ye" to the request for an apology on his talk page. MarkThomas 19:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Mark, this is a 3RR allegation; not a complaint of WP:CIVIL. Can we deal with them separately? (Sarah777 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    OK this may work against me, but I just burst my sides laughing. Is anyone going to take this as Genuine.
    I should direct editors here [92]

    And then here, [93].

    One question, was it 3 reverts? I think I addressed the issue on the discussion page? Thanks --Domer48 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment:No, it wasn't 3RR; but both yourself and Mark came very close. And as it wasn't a breach I'd ask Mark to withdraw this as, by my reading of the rules, wrongful claims of this nature may themselves be regarded as a breach of WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS etcetera. I'd suggest you both take a cooling-off period or get an Admin involved here before the dispute escalates. Regards (Sarah777 19:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    There's a bit of a mess with editors on this article all round. I'm intervening on the talk page as a solution (hopefully), and will not be lenient there on edit warring. Tyrenius 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will gracefully accept your direction, and thanks for you patient attention. Sincere Regards

    User:Opinoso reported by User:XGustaX (Result: 24 hours)

    Afro-Brazilian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Opinoso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [94]

     Clerk note: Opinoso account created in 2005. No previous blocks. Report looks valid. --Evilclown93(talk) 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User warned, continued to revert, blocked. Riana (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yankees10 reported by User:Hbdragon88 (Result: no action)

    Jeff Nelson (baseball player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Version reverted to: 02:41, 24 June 2007

    1. 04:31, 24 June 2007
    2. 15:57, 24 June 2007
    3. 17:39, 24 June 2007
    4. 18:30, 24 June 2007


    Substantial and very lame edit warring across several baseball player articles regarding...the color of the infobox. Has been edit warring for two days on Jeff Nelson, also undoing edits on many other articles, calling it vandalism. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism on Colors in Infoboxes.

    Strange. Lucky 6.9 supposedly blocked him in November (User_talk:Yankees10#Blocked), but it doesn't show up in the block log. hbdragon88 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous account. [99].--Chaser - T 22:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mcr616 reported by 24.160.245.86 (Result: no action)

    Wikipedia:Editor_review/Mcr616 (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Editor_review/Mcr616|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mcr616 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    3RR warning can be seen here: [104]

     Clerk note: This is about an editor's review. Mrc616 was handed an extremely negative and a tad uncivil review, which he removed. Mrc616 also felt that the review was from a sock/banned user. --Evilclown93(talk) 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No action. The IP has been blocked, so the edit-war is over. This is practically userspace, which is an exception to 3rr.--Chaser - T 00:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. This is a mistake. Calling an editor review "practically userspace" opens the door for any editor who puts themself up for Editor Review to sanitize other peoples' comments. Since User:Mcr616 has indicated a possibility that he will seek administratorship, it is particularly troubling that he chooses to sanitize this page. It should be remembered that, when listing himself for Editor Review, he choose to accept comment on his performance on WP, good or bad. Even if an editor review WERE to be in userspace, that still doesn't give said user WP:OWNership over the article. 3RR even applies to blatant vandalism, so it should clearly apply to this also. If these comments were so worthy of reversion, surely User:Mcr616 could have found someone else to revert, rather than running afoul of 3rr. He has clearly violated policy, and there should be reprecussions. 72.128.85.212 03:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the IP leaving this comment is currently blocked from editing. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Talk:List of notable people who converted to Christianity (edit | [[Talk:Talk:List of notable people who converted to Christianity|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As reluctant as I am to make this report, reverting on a talk page is desruptive, and this is clearly a 3RR violation. I make this report after giving him two warnings on his talk page.--SefringleTalk 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have blocked the user for 24 hours, per the evidence above. I know there have been quite a few reverts, but it's a talk page and a lengthy block for edit-warring there seems silly. -- tariqabjotu 05:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worthy of note is the fact that this comes in the middle of a dispute over multiple reversions and disruptive editing to the mainspace article itself, which is currently locked. zadignose 07:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:King Lopez reported by 72.128.91.181 (Result: No action)

    User talk:King Lopez (edit | [[Talk:User talk:King Lopez|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). King Lopez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [105]

    I'm not sure if this is 3RR or vandalism or what, but this guy has removed my comments from his talk page quite a number of times. It started with a discussion we had about a bogus warning he dropped on me. After replacing the discussion on my talk page with a welcome template ([106]), he deleted everything I had written from his talk page: [107]. I had been going to leave him a barnstar(-ish), but instead I had to leave him a sorta sarcastic message, which he blanked: [108]. I reverted him, and he blanked again: [109]. I put everything back with a warning, he reverted me: [110]. I gave him a final warning, which was deleted: [111]. And then I gave him a super-duper extra-special red-lettering-on-white-background-with-black-borders "Yo, stop it or I'm going to report this" I-really-mean-it-this-time warning, which he reverted with a comment calling me a troll: [112]. That's six instances of blanking/reversions by my count, and most of them were warnings not to revert! 72.128.91.181 10:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk pages are normally exempt from 3RR, unless the removed/reverted text is relevant in the context of a significant or important discussion, which this obviously wasn't. Phaedriel - 11:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially when the comments in question, inserted by the IP editor, included a picture of a penis. Jayjg (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've protected the said talk page due to trolling nonsense. I think we can accept that this report was made in bad faith. Riana (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also reviewing my talk page history [113] this user 72.128.91.181 (talk · contribs) has used 2 different IP's to make those same personal attacks. Which are 24.160.247.6 (talk · contribs) and 24.160.241.190 (talk · contribs) Which these 3 IP's are the same user that made the same edits to my talk page. King Lopez Contribs 09:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

    User:Abacene reported by User:RedSpruce (Result:)

    EBay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Abacene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [114]

     Clerk note: Account Abacene created today, no blocks, diff of warning. Evilclown93(talk) 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Iterator12n reported by User:CZmarlin (Result:)

    Robert Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Iterator12n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated deletion of the proper link to an article (from Bob Evans (restauranteur) to a nonexistent Bob Evans (restaurateur)) on the Robert Evans disambiguation page.

    Answer: the word "restauranteur" not only is a recognized word, but it also is in numerous articles within Wikipedia. For example, Cameron Mitchell (restauranteur) that was written on 13 August 2005. There are many more places where this word is used. Please make the changes to all the pages that show up when the word "restauranteur" is searched within Wikipedia. However, the point I am trying to make is not even the spelling, but the deliberate removal of a proper link from the disambiguation page (at least until someone moved the page just now). Thank you, CZmarlin 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer: I won't repeat the arguments in favor of "restaurateur." I'm disappointed that my (respected) opponent reverted the drastically preferred version 3 times in 24 hours, before any transgressions on my side. Iterator12n 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Once again I will repeat that I have nothing against the use of either variant of the word - with or without the "n" in it - that means "restaurant-keeper" from the French. Please keep in mind that "restauranteur (pronounced RES-tuhr-ahn-TUHR or -TOOR), by analogy with the fully anglicized restaurant, is commonly heard and seen, and most dictionaries consider it a standard variant spelling and pronunciation" [119]. Sure it may "raise conservative eyebrows", but I was not going to prejudge all the contributors that had used this version of the word. This includes the original article's title about the historic restaurant chain entrepreneur. Nevertheless, spelling is not the main point of this discussion. Moreover, I am NOT an "opponent" of anyone. Rather, I tried to correct a broken link to an existing article. It was reverted three times by a fellow editor. That was disappointing and served no purpose no matter how "drastically preferred version" of the word. Why would someone insist on reverting to a broken link? Furthermore, the comments made in the process were less than civil. Why would an editor have to stoop so low as to say use of restauranteur shows a lack of erudition?[120] on 11:19, 25 June 2007, by Iterator12n. In any case, the problem is moot since as of 16:54, 25 June 2007, Zsero has moved Bob Evans (restauranteur) to Bob Evans (restaurateur). I trust they will be very busy changing all the occurrences of the word restauranteur within Wikipedia... CZmarlin 02:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever looks at this, I reverted three times, not one time more. Finally, pls count me in re. end-of-discussion. Cheers. Iterator12n 03:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1st revert: [121] Revision as of 10:18, 25 June 2007
    • 2nd revert:[122] Revision as of 10:18, 25 June 2007
    • 3rd revert: [123] Revision as of 11:05, 25 June 2007
    • 4th revert: [124] Current revision (11:19, 25 June 2007)

    User:Jayjg reported by User:RolandR (Result:BLP issue - No violation.)

    Norman Finkelstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have explained many times that this is a WP:BLP issue, both in my edit summaries, and on the article Talk: page. The material in question is essentially libelous material about Alan Dershowitz, and I have reminded the editors on the page that Jimbo himself deleted the Alan Dershowitz page and re-created it as a stub in December 2005 when it contained similar material. I have also explained to them that WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material is quite clear: Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. Indeed, my next steps will likely be to either protect the article, or block the editors in question, if this does not stop. Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from the fact that the report is submitted invalidly (we need diffs, not versions, so that we can actually see that it's a revert) this is a BLP issue, and the three-revert rule does not apply. ElinorD (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a difficult issue, because it's an instance of the source being okay (Frank Menetrez), but the publication not (Counterpunch), at least not for contentious claims about living persons. It's especially difficult because the source calls someone's work "fraudulent." As Elinor said, we should discuss it on the BLP noticeboard, so that others can weigh in. Perhaps the same issue has been discussed in a more reliable publication. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if I posted the report incorrectly. I didn't understand the instructions, and would appreciate it if someone could reply on my talk page with a simple guide.
    On the substance, the issue is not defamation of Dershowitz, but defence of Finkelstein against Dershowitz's defamation of him. If we are to allow reference to the attacks, we surely must allow reference to a thorough response. I note that SlimVirgin accepts Menetrez as an acceptable source. She is wrong, however, about the publication. The link I posted was NOT to Counterpunch, but to a later, revised, version of Menetrez's research, published on Finkelstein's own website. If we cannot allow reference to Finkelstein's own site in order to refute the attacks oon him, we really are in danger of breaching BLP in this article. RolandR 10:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff

    User:Shashwat pandey reported by User:reneeholle (Result: 24 hours)

    Sahaj Marg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shashwat pandey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Dear Wikipedia,

    I'm not quite sure what to fill in all of these spots so please forgive my ignorance. After a few weeks of discussing changes and receiving encouragement from other editors on the Sahaj Marg page (particularly 4-d Don, that all can edit) I spent several hours this morning re-ordering and editing the Sahaj Marg page. I then tried to engage Shashwat Pandey in discussions to work further on the page. He immediately reverted my page back EIGHT times today.

    One person, Sfacets, reverted it and then said the page was in drastic need of changes so he put it back to my edits.

    I am new to Wiki but it doesn't seem right that we make edits and then one person reverts your edits immediately. At first I thought it was a mistake, some mishap with my computer, and I tried to resave the page, but it kept getting changed.

    Help is appreciated. I'm willing to go to mediation over this.

    Renee --reneeholle 13:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Renee, please use the article talk page, but as an experienced contributor, Shashwat should have known better. As such, I have blocked him for 24 hours. Riana (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ksyrie reported by User:Wbfergus

    Korean War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ksyrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:27, June 26, 2007


    This may be more of a matter for Arbitration, I will leave it up to you (I'll admit that I am not familar enough with the different policies). This has been an ongoing "matter" with this user for awhile now, and I have tried several times to settle the non-POV issue, which the user seems to refuse to accept. (see Talk page discussions linked below).

    Instead of removing the fact,I add the info,but it is other user who revert my edit.I will be honored by someone accuse me of reverting,when I added,but not simply backtrace other's edit.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is ridiculous to accuse me of reverting,this time it's for another issue,a dead chinese soldier pic,but not the number.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok,he or she seems obssessed with all my editing of this article,no matter whether is is on the same issue,it is also for another issue,the dead chinese soldier pic.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Wbfergus is happy to attribute every my edits as revert,this time,a user added a second dead chinese soldier pic(which i found excessive to decribe the war).--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Wbfergus did the same accusation,another edit for the second dead chinese soldier.He or she can accuse all of edits as revert.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This time,after discussng the talk page,I wroteIf no further query,I delete the patagon number. before I removed this phrase.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure whether my consecutive edits should be deemed as revert.You can see the two versions of this differences all made by me,So it is not a revert.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again,I added from Pantagon,which help the reader to know the exact source,If it is called a revert，I will say WOW.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought User:Wbfergus is not familiar with the concept Revert,he or she regard all the edits he or she didn't like as revert.I add a {{dubious}} template without reverting anyother's edit.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's strange,the reference which give the chinese number of casuality didn't mention any trace of estimation,so I removed this word.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Parseboy and User:Wbfergus is wheel warring the revert my edit.It is a multiparty revert.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He or she is not familiar what is a revert,revert should be focusing on the same subject.This time I add another source,for another issue.How can adding irrelevant material for another subject of the same article be deemed as revert?

    --Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been discussed several times with the user on the talk page, see [133] and [134] for further details and the users unwillingness to be neutral.

    and on 04:00, June 26, 2007

    I am not sure whether User:Wbfergus really show the reality.The chinese casuality issue was discussed in the talk page for many times,and we can't make consensus.While the two sides,(unfortunately, I am the only one who support myself),cann't bear any changes in the info box about the two numbers,one from US Pantagon,(which I prefered emphasize Pantagon,but other two Users insist on removint Pantagon),one from China(while no sources suggest it was an estimation,so I strongly reject the usation of estimate,but other two Users seems obessed with this word).There was vestige of editing war,but there was not real 3 Reverts.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ksyrie, we discussed this numerous times on the Korean War talk page. I even proposed a suggestion, about listing both sets of numbers as estimates, and right afterwards you went in and made the Chinese number a "fact" while flagging the US number as "dubious", clearly POV-pushing. Listing both sets of numbers as estimates clearly gives both sides ample oppurtunity to express their "estimates" without labeling the other side as correct or incorrect. This can be left to the individual reader based upon the the sources cited, though as I said, politicians and diplomats are not known for their truthfulness, but more for how well they make others believe their untruthfulness. Regarding your listed edits of removing the pictures, I included those to make the case for your apparent POV-pushing. If the currect version or a future edit or revery reflects what you consider to be anti-Chinese, you edit the article to your way of thinking without regard for the concensus of opinion of other editors, and no matter how reverts are done, you still maintain your posistion without providing "reliable" source information (see again my comment about the "reliability" of politicians and diplomats). This is getting out of hand (again), and I apologize to the mediators for this. Ksyrie, please sign off on the Mediation request if you are indeed attempting to negotiate in good faith. wbfergus 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What you thought to be an estimation of chinese number is only in your mind,but not in the reference or anyother source,wikipedia require verifiable source supporting but not original research,Your claiming the chinese number as estimation is just OR,And for the american number,in the BBC source which is cited clearly said it is Pantagon estimate.If you can find any reliabe and verifiable source to say the chinese number is an estimate,you can just keep it,but if you can't provide the source,the removal of it will be in agreement with the Wikipedia:Verifiability--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is NOT the forum for this, per the "rules" at the top of the page. Please continue this at Korean War talk page discussion 1 or Korean War talk page discussion 2 wbfergus 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course,it's not a forum,and I am defending myself.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ned Scott reported by SlimVirgin (result:48 hours)

    3RR on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • Previous version 07:09, June 24; under the header "disputed deletions," he removed "Administrators should seek consensus before undeleting material that has been deleted citing this policy ..." (emphasis added). It's the words "citing this policy" that Ned has been reverting for days.
    Comment

    Ned has been reverting for days against multiple editors. He wants to remove that admins who delete bios "citing this policy" (i.e. BLP) should not be reverted without consensus. He has been blocked three times previously for 3RR. [135] SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Editor has been blocked for 48 hours. This is the fourth 3RR violation, and he was just blocked for 3RR 3 days ago. Jayjg (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This appears to be the second time tonight Ned has violated the spirit of 3RR, see here. Matthew 01:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was actually about to request another 3RR block on Ned for a different article, Juice Plus, where he's got 4 reverts in 26 hours. I would also point out that he was just 3RR blocked on that article a few days ago, and I actually supported the concept that he be unblocked, if he promised that he'd participate at the talkpage instead of revert-warring on the article. At 04:27 on June 24 he agreed and said, "I'm done with that article completely." So he was unblocked, but then at 21:49 on June 24, he was right back to Juice Plus and edit-warring again.[136] I think this time we need to let him sit out the block, rather than releasing it early with a promise of good behavior. Ned needs to go do something off-wiki for awhile. --Elonka 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Elonka seems to be presenting a skewed version of the events. Ned’s reverts on the Juice Plus page were justified because Elonka had arbitrarily deleted referenced content that was under discussion and did so by using misleading edit summaries (i.e. “Copyediting/condensing for readability”, “Added more historical info”) that disguised the true nature of her edits[137][138]. Elonka had raised an argument about the content based on WP:NOT which, as Ned had pointed out,[139] was inapplicable in this case. Several editors were discussing the content and no consensus was raised to delete it but Elonka deleted it anyway (twice) and did so in a very deceptive manner. Matthew, who is a apparently a buddy of Elonka’s, jumped in to the fray and deleted the content again without providing any explanation for his reversion on the Talk page.[140] This seemed very provocative and as though it were intended to precipitate an edit war with Ned. IMO Ned is not at the root of the problem in this case. Blocking him for his actions on the Juice Plus page would be unwarranted and unlikely to help ease tensions. Rhode Island Red 14:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Halaqah reported by User:Strothra (Result:1 week)

    African slave trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halaqah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Established editor - has been blocked for 3RR before [141]. Four previous blocks for 3rr, see block log.
    1 week.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tigeroo reported by User:Arrow740 (Result:72 hours)

    Battle of Khaybar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tigeroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an established user who has been showing up recently in articles I edit, to revert. Here he even admits he doesn't know what he's reverting in the first three reverts. Arrow740 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    72 hours.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Benizer reported by User:Arrow740 (Result: 24 hrs)

    Islam in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Benizer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He has been reverted by three editors now. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a sockpuppet of one of our old friends. Arrow740 08:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Account created today. Pretty sure it's a sock, but of whom, I don't know. --Evilclown93(talk) 13:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why has he been allowed to revert again? Arrow740 19:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly he is a sock of User:His excellency or User:Kirbytime. I also added two more diffs.--SefringleTalk 22:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that this transparent sock/edit-warring SPA is still not blocked, so many hours after this report was made, shows our system to be inadequate.Proabivouac 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps they are considering the context. Introducing "Islam in the United States" with "they're black prison inmates and Wahabis" is a use of both racism and conspiracy theory that is rather amusing in this context. Admins, what is the appropriate response to this cabal? Look at their contributions and tell me if there is an alternative to edit warring? These editors' violations of WP:RS and WP:NPOV far outrank WP:3RR on a scale of prominence where violations are concerned. Benizer 00:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:129.215.149.99 reported by User:Tewfik (Result:48 Hours)

    Gilo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 129.215.149.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP has been reverted by multiple editors and has now reverted five seven ten times. TewfikTalk 08:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Revert diffs: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. There are probably others. nadav (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd block this persistent POV warrior myself, if I wasn't among those who reverted him. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just filled out a WP:RPP report also, because I think he is switching IP's. nadav (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't a 5 to 1 Jewish/Israeli POV pushing cabal enough without trying to block me? The POV pushing would be regarded as outrageous if anyone but pro-Israelis had this page on their watchlist. I mean, they're pretending Gilo is not in East Jerusalem or a settlement, in contraction of, for instance, the UN website and the BBC, and then removing references from the UN and the BBC I give. Then they're calling me POV and trying to block me for what any reasonable person would describe as neutral edits. I'm sorry wikipedia, you've got yourselves a cabal here. This is quite shocking. - Yours
    Actually one of your reverts removed my addition of both "East Jerusalem" and the sources you provided. Instead of discussing the attempted compromise on the talk page, you summarily reverted it. nadav (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    With due respect, I don't think it is fair to protect the version established by one ["cabal"-crying] IP's 10RR against that endorsed by four other users. I'm aware of the "wrong version" issues, but this case really is one where the established users are being punished for following policy, and some random IP's disruption is rewarded. Please reconsider, TewfikTalk 09:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Such lock encourages further disruptions. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also disappointed that the IP editor is being effectively rewarded for a huge 3RR violation. But in any case, he should still be blocked. nadav (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked by User:Tariqabjotu for 48 hours. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Tariqabjotu --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:koavf reported by User:A_Jalil (Result: 72h Block)

    Flag of Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:koavf is on a 1RR parole for a year , after having been indef blocked for over a half year for edit-warring and disruptive behaviour. He was given a second chance but resumed his edit warring again. He has reverted the article twice within 24 hours.--A Jalil 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Second parole vio in a recent weeks. 72h Block. Signaturebrendel 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Liftarn reported by Isarig (Result: 48h Block)

    House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User has been blocked repeatedly for violating the 3RR. I issued a 48h block. Signaturebrendel 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yqbd reported by User:Ramdrake (Result: 12h Block)

    Flood Geology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yqbd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

    User seems to be edit-warring this version back to his favorite version, despite the fact that several editors pointed out why this was inappropriate.--Ramdrake 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User already blocked by another admin for 12h. Signaturebrendel 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yqbd reported by User:Odd_nature (Result: 12 Block)

    Intelligent_design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yqbd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Like Ramdrake points out above in his filing over Yqbd's 3RR violations at Flood geology, Yqbd is a habitual 3RR violator who not only ignores all 3RR warnings, but immediately deletes them from his talk page and then makes a similar but bogus 3RR warning on the talk page of whovever warns him, leading me to think he's a troll as well as a 3RR-violating POV warrior. Odd nature 16:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User already blocked by another admin for 12h. Signaturebrendel 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Plumbago reported by 216.125.49.252 (Result: Technical 3RRV, no block)

    Flood geology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Plumbago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently this user simply reverts contributions from anonymous editors without discussion. I'll note that the edits he reverted from me were mostly content additions, editorial changes, tagging rather than reverts. --216.125.49.252 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Plumbago was correcting vandalism by 216.125.49.252, and 3RR does not apply to correcting vandalism. Meaning this filing is a bogus filing to sideline or intimidate those who've opposed 216.125.49.252's vandalism. This filing is a misuse of process, an attempt to game the system. I've suggested that he withdraw it. Odd nature 20:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide diffs without intermediate versions. We need to see what exactely the user in question edited - the diffs above show no change to the article with several intermediate versions not being shown. Please file your report properly. Thank you, Signaturebrendel 21:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is unfair to Plumbago. This edit where the anonymous editor tried to redirect the article, without any discussion whatsoever, and without any edit summary, would indicate that 216.125.49.252 was a vandal, even after assuming a lot of good faith. To all of us, this was nothing more than vandalism that needed reverting, and if Plumbago wasn't so fast in the reverts, I would have contributed likewise, and my name would have been thrown up here. This is very sad. Orangemarlin 23:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR appears to have actually occured and while some of the edits look ill-advised none seem to be vandalism per se. However, since one of the edits was reversion of whole-sale redirecting of a very large article, I'm not going to block. Now everyone please try to play nice. JoshuaZ 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, it transpires that I may have bitten a newcomer. I should have exercised more caution and avoided an edit war, but I would stand by my original assessment that the anon looked and acted like a vandal (thanks for the support Odd nature and Orangemarlin). Anyway, in case the anon is still reading, I've written a longer reply at my talkpage. My apologies for causing this unnecessary blow-up. Cheers, --Plumbago 13:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yqbd reported by John Broughton (Result: 12h Block)

    Flood geology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yqbd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user was blocked for 12 hours at 17:53 today for violating the 3RR rule at another article. I am requesting that the block be increased to a total of 24 hours because violating the 3RR rule in two different articles clearly indicates a willingness to ignore the rules. (The user has also been incivil, copying warnings by another editor back to that editor's talk page, in case there is any question as to whether the 3RR violations are merely overzealous good behavior.)

    -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    John, I believe this violation is the same one I reported above about this individual; it is, however, distinct from the one reported by Odd Nature.--Ramdrake 18:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already block by another admin for 12h. Signaturebrendel 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:91.104.52.209 reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 24h block)

    Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 91.104.52.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the user might also be using another IP - 91.104.25.59 - these two IPs are similar and the edits are the same. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked the main IP account for 24h due to an obvious vio (he also engaged in edit warring on another page - having received two warning overall). The other account is an obvious sockpuppet-thus I have blocked it indefinitely. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spylab reported by User:Modelsides (Result: Article protected)

    Ante Starcevic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Spylab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has already been protected by another admin - thus, there is no need for a block. Signaturebrendel 23:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Modelsides appears to be a troll, vandal and sock puppet account that was mainly created to harass me. See that account's edit history for details. Also, I was the one who requested protection of that page because of blatant POV-pushing, vandalism of necessary tags, and edit warring.Spylab 11:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bakasuprman reported by 81.208.163.214 (Result:No vio)

    E. V. Ramasami Naicker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00.12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

    Note:He was last blocked on 17th June 2007

    I made 2 reverts which were discussed on the talk page. 81.208.163.214 (talk · contribs) is most probably a sock of Anwar saadat (talk · contribs) or some other established user masquerading as an IP. My last block was in September, not June 1007 as this sockpuppeteering troll seems to suggest.Bakaman 23:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Three reverts were conducted, one short of a vio. There simply isn't enough evidence of disruptive behavior here to warrant a block. No vio. Signaturebrendel 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mais oui! reported by User:breadandcheese (Result:Page is now protected)

    University of Dundee. Mais oui! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is now protected, so blocks should not be needed. Tom Harrison Talk 13:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SixOfDiamonds aka User:74.73.16.230 reported by User:MONGO (Result:)

    7 World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SixOfDiamonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)aka74.73.16.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [142]
    • 1st revert: [143]using SixOfDiamonds
    • 2nd revert: [144]using 74.73.16.230
    • 3rd revert: [145]using 74.73.16.230
    • 4th revert: [146]using 74.73.16.230
    • 5th revert: [147]using 74.73.16.230
    • 6th revert: [148]using SixOfDiamonds
    • 7th revert: [149]using SixOfDiamonds

    IP 74.73.16.230 admitted to being User:SixOfDiamonds here. Please block username and IP.

    Reverts continue, now from this ip which is clearly not operated independently of the other:

    Tom Harrison Talk 15:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry but its not a 3RR to revert vandalism, your constant reverts with only the summary of "rv" are against Wikipedia policy. You are not allowed to do a wholesale revert in any case other then vandalism. Please see appropriate policy. Furthermore you are actually removing content and misstating a source. The word you keep adding "conspiracy theorist" in relation to the source is not what the source says, I posted the exact quote, and you removed it without any reason given. As well as Aude who stated I was putting words in the sources mouth. The source itself is [151] and on paragraph 9, you can see the exact wording. Your removal, and misstating of the content is vandalism and is then permitted to be reverted. --SixOfDiamonds 13:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      And now more people appear to add the incorrect statement back without stating why. Still using the source as a reference to something it does not say. Is not misstating a reference against Wikipedia policy? --SixOfDiamonds 13:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So far you have reverted me, Dman727, MONGO, and Rx StrangeLove. Are we all vandals? Tom Harrison Talk 13:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please post where in the source it states the people who believe the following sentence are conspiracy theorists. No I think you are vandalizing the article to maintain your POV. --SixOfDiamonds 13:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:VAND before you accuse four editors of vandalism again.--MONGO 13:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should: "Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." You removed verifiable information from a verifiable reference, then inserted information not contained in that reference, then proceeded to not explain why in your justification. --SixOfDiamonds 13:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To save me the time in tracking your edits, would you care to state now what other accounts you previously used prior to creating the SixOfDiamonds account? We did discuss wioth you on the article talkpage and you did not get a consensus for the changes you have been edit warring on. See WP:EW--MONGO 13:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the only account the IP. I was told by others in my field about Wikipedia and the policy driven environment. Perhaps I should have been given more warning over the hostility of opposing views in the community. Unfortunately having me cited for 3RR will not change the outcome of the AfD. Just to reiterate, I do not see you defending against the above claim of vandalism. Also since you seem to be an established editor, I am not sure why you keep misstating the source. If you feel the source is invalid, as you argued on the talk page, the proper measure would be to seek removing it, not misstating it, which is against Wikipedia policy. --SixOfDiamonds 14:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ben-Velvel and User:Szopen reported by User:Colchicum (Result:Page protected)

    3RR war between Ben-Velvel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Szopen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the Polish-Soviet War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Both have already broken 3RR. Time reported: 12:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

    1. [152] 10:57, June 28
    2. [153] 11:20, June 28
    3. [154] 11:36, June 28
    4. [155] 11:47, June 28
    1. [156] 10:54, June 28
    2. [157] 11:01, June 28
    3. [158] 11:24, June 28
    4. [159] 11:39, June 28
    I have protected the page. Tom Harrison Talk 13:49, 28 June 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=141187538"