Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive68

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard archives

v • d • e
Administrators' archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
Incidents archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
3RR archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
Arbitration enforcement archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Community sanction archives Search
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14
Other links
Talk | Checkuser | Backlog

Contents

[edit] User:Camptown reported by User:Ijanderson977 (Result: Stale)

  • Previous version reverted to: ???


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

This user kept on uploading a map, which contained his and other users POV, instead of using an existing map that was NPOV.
I tried discussing it with the user. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence#Pakistan)
However he insisted on using his own map with his own POV in it and reverted it whenever I tried using the existing map, which was NPOV. This then resulted with him starting an editing war. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of placing reports here is to de-escalate an edit war. Posting a report a day after the edit war isn't really relevant. Also, you didn't include the mandatory section on the previous version reverted to, nor did you leave a warning on his talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ilgiz reported by User:Sbw01f (Result: Warning)

  • Previous version reverted to:[6]


User is continually reverting and removing legit info, generally being unconstructive and making the article extremely hard to edit properly. Page is littered with reverts and unexplained/unwarranted removal of content by this user.Sbw01f (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The user was not warned until after this report. Please warn users first and report them only if they break the 3RR after the warning, or if they are experienced enough that they should not require a warning. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on Anti-Americanism (no violation)

Trying this again; I think my first complaint got lost. There is edit-warring on the anti-Americanism article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Americanism. Certain editors won't let anybody put any warning tags on this very controversial topic which has a lot problems about neutrality. Every time any warningh templates are put on the page, somebody immediately deletes ALL of them. Rachel63 (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an edit-war of using warning templates in the article on anti-Americanism. Some editors won't let anybody put any warning template about neutrality or whether its encyclopedic on the article. They just blank all the warnings every time. Rachel63 (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved your original comment as it was lost due to its placement, and added a heading to this one. --WebHamster 14:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that we've got your report here perhaps you should be aware of the fact that this board is for reporting violations of the WP:3RR rule. Unfortunately your generic complaint has only highlighted to the one person who has violated 3RR, which, unfortunately is Rachel63 (talk · contribs), ie you. diff1 diff2 diff3--WebHamster 14:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the other administrator's page says if there is edit warring come here, so I came here. If this is not the place to report edit warring then the incidents page shouldn't send you here for edit warring. And you are not being fair. I didn't violate the 3RR rule. Rachel63 (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • As mentioned, this is for reports of violations of the 3RR (only). No violation recorded. Please report non-3RR issues elsewhere (e.g. WP:ANI), and if reporting a 3RR issue use the template at the bottom of this page. This report is closed. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fiesta bowl reported by User:Baegis (Result: Already blocked)

Ohio State Buckeyes football

2003 Fiesta Bowl

Editor keeps inserting opinion piece from former SI writer Rick Reilly into the articles (both related). While the merits of the opinion piece can be discussed on the talk page, this editor is in clear violation of the 3rr rule on two different articles. Editor also appears to lack civility, as evidenced by this tirade after a warning from an uninvolved administrator. Baegis (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Already blocked for 31 hours last night by IceStorm. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.185.13.172 reported by User:Atlantics88 (Result: 1 week)

  • Previous version reverted to: [7]


User keeps on reverting info about HouseGuest doing pornography. Information is there to keep with consistency of other present and former Big Brother HouseGuests doing pornography. Atlantics88 (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 1 week by Kafziel for vandalism. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Power2084 reported by User:Burzum (Result: 12 hours)

Previous similar edits:

  • 07:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[12]
  • 13:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[13]

Edits that violate 3RR:


User:Power2084 has been asked 5 times (two times on User_talk:Power2084 and three times in edit summaries) to discuss edits on Talk:nuclear meltdown but has yet to do so. User:Power2084 has also been informed of the 3RR policy three times.

In response to 2nd formal 3RR warning, User:Power2084 removed all warnings on User_talk:Power2084 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC) and proceeded to immediately reverting for a 5th time in 24 hours.

Recommend a block and a restoration of warnings on User_talk:Power2084. Burzum (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 12 hours. Restoring the warnings is irrelevant - a user who removes warnings is considered to have read and acknowledged them. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:EBDCM reported by User:QuackGuru (Result: protected)

Chiropractic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). EBDCM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Previous version:[14][15]
Previous version:[16][17]
Previous version:[20][21]

Previous version:[23]

Previous version:[25]
Previous version:[26]

EBDCM has confirmed he is the 208 anon but has denied he has another registered account.

The Talk:Chiropractic article is under homeopathy probation and the editor was previously notified. Regards, QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Page protected to close down the edit war. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wcfirm reported by User:Redrocket (Result: Already blocked)

User has repeatedly added their site to the main space of the article, in a very unencyclopedic fashion. User has also added this site numerous other times over the past few weeks, showing their pattern of behavior, as seen here [27] [28]. I attempted to get the user to discuss things on talk pages, but only received a reply saying their site was official and that they would willfully disregard wikipedia rules [29] [30] [31].

When considering this 3RR report, please be aware of an earlier 3RR warning to the same editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Already blocked for a week by MaxSem for spamming. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fr4zer reported by User:Craw-daddy (Result: 31 hours)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 10:31, 6 March 2008 (See his talk page for his response to the warning.)


Also, there's a violation of 3RR on another page.

Continual insertion of vandalism on these pages (and others, see, e.g. Osmosis). --Craw-daddy | T | 11:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Vsmith got there first with a 31-hour vandalism block. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tausor reported by User:Countrypaula (Result:blocked indef)

  • Previous version reverted to: [32]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [33]

A short explanation of the incident.This is the same user that was blocked in December for doing the same thing.He engages in edit warring. He edits without any explaination,and has gotten uncivil in his summaries if we undo his edits.I noted on last edit that I was reporting this.The sources he is citing are gossip news sites, not reliable source. Countrypaula (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This report is improperly formatted (and after looking into it myself there is no 3RR violation today) but I have blocked the user indefinitely after looking through his disruptive SPA contribs. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Thank you. I am still learning formatting. Countrypaula (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kendobs reported by User:Cloudz679 (Result:both blocked)

  • Previous version reverted to: 23:26


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 15:05

Persistent renaming of article, breaking links to other pages etc. despite warnings, introduction to the talk page and general offers of assistance. This user will not give up! Cloudz679 (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Both Kendobs and Cloudz679 are clearly edit warring, so 24 hours for both. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Page protected for one week. When they get back from their break, they will have a few days to find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:86.130.11.251 reported by User:SiobhanHansa (Result: 24 hrs)

Editor continually readding external link. SiobhanHansa 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chanakyathegreat reported by User:Athaenara (Result: 24 hrs)

As discussed on Talk:List of countries by size of armed forces#Submarines with Pakistan Navy, the user has persisted in removing a sourced figure (10) and its inline citation, replacing it with an unsourced figure (5) with no citation. — Athaenara ✉ 02:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Realist2 reported by Kookoo Star (Result: 72 hours)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: see below

Editor "Realist2" has reverted at least 4 edits in less than 24 hours. He has already received a 24 hour ban for breaking the 3RR only 2 days ago, and the first thing he did once the ban was over was begin edit warring again on both the Michael Jackson and Thriller pages again. The user is something of an obsessive fan and has a history of edit warring (there is a warning for edit warring on his TALK page from only last week) and since he has been blocked as recently as two days ago, perhaps sterner measures are required. Kookoo Star (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can actually see all these edits were variations and we (as you can see on the Thriller talk page) were trying to come to a compromise in the issue in which the specific wording of the section was very key to the problem. Non, or those edits were exactly the same , rather alterations and some of the edits arent even related to each other. I reverted the inclusion of the 29 x platinum thing which had NOTHING to do with any of the other edits. I wasnt even given a warning that i was approaching an alleged 3rr and he never even informed me that i was reported. Many of my edits were reverts back to a neutral edit made by an admin.

  • In the second allegged revert all i did was remove the word "reported" as i wanted to maintain a npov. Their ALL reported, but if you specify that on one and not the other it implies 1 is more valid than the other.
  • The third alleged revert was the removal of the eagles statement. It has NOTHING to do with the previous issue and was UNSOURCED.
  • In the fourth alledged revert I removed the words "Very dramatic" , its removal of pov wording, whats very dramatic to 1 person is not so dramatic to another.
  • Many other editor not just me reverted his pov assertions as you can see from the edit history on the Michael Jackson page.
  • Additionally BEFORE i was aware of this report (so i did it of my own accord) at approx 9.30pm i reinserted the word "vary" seen Here therefore my fourth alleged revert was not that i removed the phrase "vary dramatically" rather that when looking at it as a whole i only removed the pov slanted word "dramatically". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is rubbish, i never broke 3rr, i was never informed of the alledged approaching event and i was never told of the report. He has alleged that i have a pro Michael Jackson stance so my edits are invalid, im the one removing the pov, he has the anti jackson bias and dislikes Jackson fans.

Also it looks like i WAS right about the tag teaming 2 days ago, they have both reported me in 2 days. Yes i know i did wrong the first time and i went about it the wrong way, but this today is a joke.

I have learnt from my block a few days ago and have strived to maintain neutrality on the issue, reverting back to edits made and advised by admins. Realist2 (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No warning here was necessary because you have once again shown yourself to be edit warring less than 2 days after your recent 24 hour ban for 3RR was over. You know full well what you are doing and you know it is wrong. Trying to shift the blame away from yourself by implying that I hate Jackson and his fans and accusing me of tag-teaming is not going to work. You have reverted at least four of my own edits on the Michael Jackson page on 5 March - even ones which had relevant citations - whether by using "undo" or by simply copying and pasting to restore to previous versions written by yourself. You have shown yourself to be far too biased to contribute to Wikipedia articles and your obsessive (and possessive) stance over the Jackson articles proves this. Considering your behaviour over the past couple of days alone, it is clear that you are also a liar and a troublemaker. You have also misquoted or misrepresented much of the evidence you have written in your defence above. Kookoo Star (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You did not include the previous version reverted to, therefore it is impossible to determine that the first diff you gave is actually a revert. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As you never even bothered to inform be of my report its blatantly clear you knew that if i had the chance to defend myself i would probable win. Also hello 1 of those alleged reverts was the removal of something unrelated and UNSOURCED. you must source info.

I made over 150 edits in a 24 hour period yesterday. I cant remember what edits i made where. You must warn ppl if they are close to an ALLEGED 3rr or how are they ment to know. especially when you start counting untrlated issues that are unsourced suck as the 29 x platinum thing. My issue on that if whenever i see something unsourced i delete it in a heatbeat. Looking at your previous edits, its unlike you not to source anything. I have a suspicion you set that their deliberately knowing I would delete it so you could include it on your vague tally of reverts. Realist2 (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally this was reported 24 hours ago, all editing on the issue has since ended so the usage of a block is of less purpose now. Is there not a time frame when an alligation becomes stale? Realist2 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The previous version for the first revert has now been added. As you can see, it is a clear revert to the version before my own. The other three reverts listed are for items in the same article but not necessarily the same sentences. Would you like me to include "previous version" links to all of the reverts as opposed to just the first one? Kookoo Star (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Based on looking at what's going on even since the user was made aware of this report, it looks like he is still revert warring. A user has attempted to open a channel of communication with Realist2 on the talk page (starting 4 March 2008), but has so far not been answered. I can only assume this pattern of reverting will continue, based on the following edits:
  1. 05:37, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "they are all reported, no need to apply sceptism to it")
  2. 05:42, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "its still selling")
  3. 14:38, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "please source")
  4. 16:26, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "removal of pov slanting, just present the facts ppl can decide")
  5. 17:20, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "thats you pov in my pov it isnt a dramatic difference")
  6. 21:35, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Thriller */")
  7. 22:20, 6 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Return to public eye and 25th anniversary of Thriller */")
Moreover, this is coming directly off of another 3RR block that happened just days ago.
  • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. --slakr\ talk / 11:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Taiketsu reported by User:MelicansMatkin (Result: Various people blocked)

  • Previous version reverted to: 03:18


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 03:39

This edit war is stemming over a disagreement between two members, User:Urutapu and User:Taiketsu over the translation of several Japanese Pokémon episode titles into the English language. The translation being edit-warred over the most is whether a title should be listed as Lucario! Wave Shot of Anger!! or Lucario! Pulse Bomb of Anger!! While I am certainly no expert in the Japanese language, this edit war is simply absurd and has been ongoing for several days, with most of the activity taking place from 13:58 on March 5. User:Taiketsu is using another Wiki as a source for his translation(Bulbapedia), and has stated several times in the edit summaries to do a general search on the internet; something which I feel is incorrect considering that online translations often differ from website to website. I should also note that a difference of opinion between User:Urutapu and User:Taiketsu on episode title translations has occurred many times in the past, and that Taiketsu has been previously blocked four times for edit warring. I would also report User:Urutapu for this ongoing and unnecessary edit war, but unfortunately the user who initially gave a 3RR warning to User:Taiketsu neglected to do the same for User:Urutapu. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

IT IS THE CORRECT TRANSLATION. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Pokemon+Pulse+Bomb&btnG=Search
  • Dragon PULSE-----------りゅうのはどう
  • Dark PULSE-------------あくのはどう
  • Water PULSE------------みずのはどう
  • PULSE Bomb-------------はどうだん
  • Bomb - 爆弾 (ばくだん) ---->

Pulse 波動｛はどう｝弾 (だん) 波動+弾=波動弾(はどうだん) http://eow.alc.co.jp/Pulse%20/UTF-8/

1. 脈拍｛みゃくはく｝、脈｛みゃく｝、脈動｛みゃくどう｝、鼓動｛こどう｝、振動｛しんどう｝、波動｛はどう｝

(Taiketsu (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

  • What a mess. Right or wrong, revert warring is not the way we do things.
    1. Taiketsu has made nearly a dozen reverts in the last day or two and has four previous 3RR blocks. 4 days this time.
    2. Urutapu has made four reverts in the last 24 hours (and several more before that). He has two previous 3RR blocks so does not need to be re-warned about it. 24 hours for him.
    3. MelicansMatkin has also made four reverts (from 16:48 UTC yesterday to 02:10 UTC today). As he's warning and reporting other people, he is clearly aware of 3RR, but has no previous blocks. 8 hours.

Anyone else? Stifle (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:WebHamster reported by User:bsharvy (Result: 12 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [34]


More: [40] [41]

In addition to the reverts mentioned, he has deleted material without using the undo function, mostly in the warning tags, repeatedly. See his other edits on March 6.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME None. His homepage (which contains a nude image...) says he's been using Wikipedia for 5 years. He knows the rules.

This user is refusing to allow the addition of warning templates for lack of neautrality and unencyclopedic content, and he is refusing to allow the removal of POV-pushing content. Bsharvy (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 12 hours. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Saul Tillich reported by User:Anastrophe. (Result: 48 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [42]


User believes he owns the article, and knows the truth about article subject. replaces majority of article with his own personal version, daily. contravenes consensus. (ginormous) amounts of discussion, unwilling to compromise. many more diffs going back weeks.(my dates above might be fubar, apologies.) Anastrophe (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts in one 24-hour period. Those are too spread out to constitute a violation. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
i would argue that they still constitute a pattern of clearly disruptive edits that do violate 3RR in spirit - per the following from the 3RR page: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.". this is a relentless pattern of making wholesale changes to the article every day - sometimes multiple times per day. the activities are quite disruptive. if not 3RR, then can you advise what other path might be taken? Anastrophe (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
hello? i'd be interested in a reply to this. i think the basis of my complaint is valid - the formal description of 3RR makes it clear that it is not strictly limited to '3 reverts within 24 hours'. we've got a handful of editors who are being worn down by one editor who finds it enjoyable to do a wholesale reversion of the article to a version that has not been agreed to by *any* other editors, and which is a pretty reckless abuse of NPOV and OR. it's frustrating, to say the least. Anastrophe (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked 48 hours. Disruptive edit warring, despite warnings from other users. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thank you, i appreciate it. Anastrophe (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:136.8.152.13‎ reported by User:Chrisieboy (Result: warned )

Chrisieboy (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Going over limit was inadvertant, for which I appologise - I'd forgotten there were two yesterday. It is not my intention to start an edit war.
User Chrisieboy has been engaged in disruptive reverting, rolling back perfectly valid changes and re-introducing errors without any explaination (other than 'I didn't like it') despite requests to provide reasons.
User Chrisieboy has also deleted my comments on a third user's talk page (Ian3055), and appears to be intent on a course of disruptive behavior.
Finally, note that the warning was given after the fourth reversion listed above. I did stop on being warned. Report was given at that time because I pointed out to user Chrisieboy that they were also on three reverts - warning has been deleted from Chrisieboy's talk page by user Christieboy.
136.8.152.13 (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Warned.. Both editors should leave the page to simmer, though, for the time being, as both are now aware of the 3RR and should take their disputes to the article's talk page. I thank you two in advance for settling this in a civil and thoughtful way. Cheers :) --slakr\ talk / 13:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Spitzer19 reported by User:Boodlesthecat (Result:24 hours each )


User:Spitzer19 is a suspected sock puppeteer who has been edit warring on this article and on the Neo-Nazi article, where he has received multiple warnings. His edit warring largely consists of removing sourced information that he replaces with his own unsourced POV. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Boodles has also been edit-warring here, and his contributions, while slightly less POV that Spitzers, also include BLP violations which he's reinserted before having the BLP violation explained in small words. Argyriou (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have asked Argyriou (who has engaged in belligerent edit warring on the Neo-Nazi article--including claiming that the New York Times wasn't a Reliable Source(!) to supply evidence of his claim about my "BLP violations." Until such time, such claim should be considered a partisan unsupported claim in this manner designed to minimize the violations of the above editor. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Spitzer19 and User:Boodlesthecat blocked for 24 hours each. - auburnpilot talk 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dablyputs reported by User:SWik78 (Result: Page protected )

  • Previous version reverted to: [43]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [50]

This is an all-out edit/revert war between Dablyputs (talk · contribs) and Working terriers (talk · contribs). In addition to reverts listed above, there are at least half a dozen more within the last 24 hours as can be seen here. SWik78 (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kilz reported by User:WalterGR (Result: 24h blocks x2)


Summary of incident:

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contribs) 18:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not violate the 3 revert rule. Looking at the times of the so called reverts they are all wrong. On the 7th, the page was split and so edits were on a new page. The 1st and 2nd edits are consecutive. According to the 3 revert rule consecutive edits are considered 1. They are not a revert, but editing and removing part. This is an initial edit for the day. The 3rd was a revert, to cancel out a revert by HaL. The same with the 4th. That totals 2 reverts with no warning on that page. The warning posted was for another day and another page. That warning was for 2 edits and 2 reverts. Since the page was split, the edits happened on 2 different pages. The reverts were to remove poorly sourced sections. Kilz (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then:
WalterGR (talk | contributions) 08:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The first is an edit, not a revert. The page was recently created, mine was the second edit after creation of the page, and the removal was a section while editing, not reverting. The removal of the sections was for non verifiability, per comments. The last was to undo the actions of a anonymous sockpuppet. There was no warning about 3 reverts on that page and revert after. Kilz (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I see no mention of requiring a warning on 3RR. Additionally, I had warned you about a different article the previous day.
Why have all cases before and after this one been dealt with?
WalterGR (talk | contributions) 17:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User: Zipbip reported by User:Arcayne (Result: No block)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [56]

An apparent WP:SPA to edit Googoosh, pushing the foreign language spelling before the English-language spelling. Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

i am not pushing the farsi spelling before the english spelling in the article, the info-box is mainly decorative. also, you reverted me 5 times, removing her height and other important info from the info-box. zipbip —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipbip (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. My edits were not reverts of your posts (they were initial copyediting, and my specific reverts of your material did not exceed the rules), nor were they edit-warring, which your edits specifically constituted.
As well, I think you - being new and a single-purpose account - are unfamiliar with the terminology we use in Wikipedia. We don't use decorative, pretty little features. This is the English-language wikipedia. English spellings go first (as you were advised). As well, we don't include lists of past (or future) concert dates, as per WP:NOT. You were advised to use the Discussion page, and you flatly refused to discuss there, stipulating that you preferred to use the edit summary.
I understand that you are new, but newness doesn't excuse making the same mistakes on purpose and refusing to discuss them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a silly edit war. Please try and find common ground. The alternative would be to protect the page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I would submit that this isn't an edit-war so much as it is the basic failure of a user to follow (or perhaps understand) the extent of our rules here; therefore, their common ground is not to be found within Wikipedia territory. While the page has been (to my reckoning unnecessarily) protected, the SPA Zipbip still violated 3RR, as noted in the diffs presented above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 21:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that Zipbip did not make another revert after the 3RR warning, so he wouldn't be blocked anyway. It seems this user is just uninformed of our policies, and page protection will hopefully get him to discuss on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, even though I think we are splitting hairs - it was less than a minute. I hope he does learn, but I think we will be back here again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Patmar15 reported by User:Jéské Couriano (Result:24h)

  • Previous version reverted to: [57]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [62]

Edit-warring at the template. When warned for 3RR, he replied with this. -Jéské (v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife) 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours by Kafziel. Daniel Case (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yosemitesam25 reported by User:Arjuna808 (Result: 24h & 48h blocks )

  • Previous version reverted to: [63]


Yosemitesam25 has continued to revert consensus material and reinstate his own material with disregard to repeated warnings that his edits violate WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and possibly WP:COI. Note that the edit described above as 06:36, 8 March 2008 was the beginning of a series of six edits that either reverted previous material or reinstated previous POV material that was legitimately reverted by a consensus of other editors. Finally, I apologize in advance if I have filled out this report incorrectly -- coding is not my forte but I think I have it correct. Thank you for your attention. Arjuna (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe one of those was a consecutive edit (simultaneous) in which I was adding citations in response to Eekadog.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Result - I have blocked Yosemitesam25 and Arjuna808 for 24 and 48 hours respectively and warned a third user, Eekadog. It is recommended that all users please use discussion to calmly propose changes to the said article. If it happens again I would recommend that article bans be implemented. ScarianCall me Pat 15:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:ChipotLoser reported by User:YOUR_NAME (Result: No 3RR, but blocked for spam)

If you look at the history of this Chipotle Mexican Grill article the "fan site" links have been added and removed several times. This user has consistently added this site (their own) back several times in spite of a variety of other users removing it. The COIBot Spam LinkReport for this domain confirms the idea that this is being added in a manner inconsistent with wikipedia guidelines. 70.88.211.141 (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • User has 1) not been warned 2) only edited the page three times. However, I will block user for spam links. Sasquatch t|c 23:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:99.236.63.51 reported by User:momusufan (Result: 24-hour edit-warring block )


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [64]

IP has violated 3RR on this article and other articles as well, appears to not want to discuss his edits on the talk page of the article. Momusufan (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:WilliamHanrahan reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 72 hours)

Editor has recently been blocked for edit warring, yet continues. One Night In Hackney303 03:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. --slakr\ talk / 11:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Otto4711 reported by User:HiDrNick (Result: already blocked)

Edit waring after warning; persists in restoring non-free images in a manner prohibited by WP:NONFREE. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Already blocked. --slakr\ talk / 11:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lazyguythewerewolf reported by User:Strongsauce (Result: 48 hrs)


Edit warring with other users. Ignoring WP:CRYSTAL, or WP:OR Strongsauce (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the user has made a fifth revert just now [65], though at 20:21, this is more than 24 hours after the first revert. He has still made 4 reverts in the past 24 hours. Dreaded Walrus t c 20:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours., due to previous disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:67.188.208.203 reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: 24 hrs)

IP but probably experienced WP editor due to familiarity with WP as seen in his comments. Best solution would be to semi-protect the article. There has been many sockpuppets editing this article recently, see [66].Ultramarine (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that one of the reverts was to undo a false positive from bot. Does that count?!Giovanni33 (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a listed exception. Hardly a false positive.Ultramarine (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It was not vandalism and thus is a false positive. Last time I checked bots were not editors. Undoing a false positive from a bot is not undoing an the work of another editor (which is the definition of a reversion).Giovanni33 (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Mass deletion. No exception for Bots. He was warned and continued.Ultramarine (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It was a false positive - 3rr blocks are not supposed to be punitive. In this case, that revert doesn't violate 3RR as as the spirit of 3rr is to put a stop to edit warring. Correcting a bot error, however, is not an edit war/content dispute. --Veritas (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sia34 reported by User:Arcayne (Result: Article protected)


  • The user is an established editor who is well aware of 3RR

Pretty much reverting out those edits from multiple users he doesn't agree with. Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, this was a 3RR complaint, not a RfP. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Page protection is a common result of 3RR reports. Sia34 did not violate 3RR (consecutive edits do not count as reverts), so the alternative was to protect the page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. Consecutive edits that undo other's specific edits DO constitute reverts. Maybe you missed that? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mospyt reported by User:Cloudz679 (Result: Indef blocked)

  • Previous version reverted to: 11:21


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 11:37

Repeated addition of disputed material ignoring warnings and attempts at dispute resolution. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to reporter: In future, please report diffs instead of former versions. That makes it a lot easier to follow.

Examination: This 3RR report is directly related to the one below, also reported by Cloudz679. User:Mospyt is a very new user that has only worked on this article. The only changes made by this user are this series of blankings and changes. These changes are also made by 79.77.181.111 (talk · contribs) shortly before Mospyt starts on the article, so it is incredibly likely that Mospyt and this IP are the same person, and also possible that Mospyt is a WP:SPA but it is possibly too early to say anything about that (AGF).

The below reported reverts by User:Cometstyles are reversions of the above blankings/changes by Mospyt. Apart from these reversions, Cometstyles appears to have had no other involvment in this article. The restoration by Cometstyles of information deleted by Mospyt is more a reversion of vandalism than anything else.

Mospyt has just been blocked indefinitely (not by me, though) - 52 Pickup (deal) 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cometstyles reported by User:Cloudz679 (Result: no action)

  • Previous version reverted to: 11:17


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 11:37

Repeated reverts beyond acceptable practices; edit warring. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See previous 3RR report
This user was simply reverting the deletions made by the above now indef-blocked user. Potential bad faith nomination. - 52 Pickup (deal) 15:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mythdon reported by User:Legotech(Result:No action taken)

Jungle Fury Power Rangers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 21:56, 10 March 2008 (edit summary: "Created page")
  2. 22:17, 10 March 2008 (edit summary: "Why not? People can build it up later.")
  3. 22:51, 10 March 2008 (edit summary: "Thats no reason in this case")
  4. 23:00, 10 March 2008 (edit summary: "Give the article time to build up")
  • Diff of warning: here

He appears to be trying to make this article about the specific rangers...however there doesn't appear to be enough material to actually make a new article yet.

—Legotech·(t)·(c) 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is more good faith, so I'm reluctant to block. He is right that if there is information it should be included; however, for the time being, the article can exist as a redirect. If sufficient information emerges, we can always undo the redirect. Also, you may like to suggest the possibility of working on the article in his userspace (eg. User:Mythdon/Jungle Fury Power Rangers) as a compromise; when he gets enough information there, he can move it to article space. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bless sins reported by User:Yahel Guhan (Result:Page protected)

Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture/5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Bless sins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: unnecessary. Bless sins has been blocked for a 3rr before. Bless sins has reverted 4 times the inclusion of the Mecca image. Yahel Guhan 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Not going to hand out blocks yet, as you're both established and you're both edit warring; blocking you both would be counterproductive. Please use this opportunity, while the page is protected, to come to an agreement on the talk page; if you cannot, please do not edit the article. Thank you. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dbachmann reported by User:Camptown (Result:Make love, not war)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [75]

and:

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [79]

This is just two examples of edit wars the user:Dbachmann is involved in. When being notified about this, he instantly deletes the legitimate warning from his own talk page.

and this is a typical example of user:Dbachmann's communication left on my talk page:

[83].

--Camptown (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This report should be removed since Dbachmann has clearly not breached the 3rr in any of these cases. You need to make *more* than three reverts during a 24h period in a single article.--Berig (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Camptown is in need of some coaching. He pushes a nationalist pov with no remorse, and now is trolling my talkpage with his 3rr warnings, besides forum-shopping with bogus 3rr reports. The diff he posts as "typical" of our interaction follows me wasting my breath talking sense to him while he limited himself to post warning templates to my talkpage. I do recommend a short cool-down block for this user. dab (𒁳) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The warnings are indeed legitimate and not "bogus", Dbachmann is repeatedly ignoring invitations to a constructive dialogue about sensitive matters regarding articles related to the Republic of Kosovo, but he resorts to quick revisions (usually without explanation on the related talk pages). Only hours after the much needed protection of Kosovo was lifted, he split the article for - I guess - the third time. It should be pointed out that the original split - suggested and executed by Dbachmann on his own initiative - was turned down in a vote, unfortunately, that vote was also ignored by Dbachmann. --Camptown (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The isn't the first time that Dab has done this. You should see how many times he has gotten away with 3RR on Assyrian people. This isn't the first time dab ingoring voting results. Despite twice being voted on down on moving the Assyrian people page, he continues with the idea of moving without taking into concent the rest of Wiki's community. Actually, if you look at the history, you will see mostly him editing the page, because other have quite since he reverts anything he doesn't agree with and his version of the page is always final .He sometimes disrespects others, including recently Chaldean, do you speak English? At all? [[84]] - is that how a mod is to communicate with others? You know, its stuff like this that gets other disgouraged from continuing to work on wiki. I am still suprised his authority has not been challanged. He continues to make drastic edits and moves that is far from the explantion of reality on multiple topics. Chaldean (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Deplorable, to say the least.... Dab seems to shop for a quite a few articles he can "safely" revert three times within the stipulated 24 hours. But, doesn't the 3RR-rule actually restrict an editor from that kind of borderline behavior? --Camptown (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
He didn't technically violate 3RR in any cases; however, 3RR should not be seen as an endorsement to revert someone as much as policy allows. From now on, can you two not revert each other? If one of you makes a change the other doesn't like, please bring it up on each others' talk pages and come to an agreement. In fact, I think I'll step you guys down to 2RR. Instead of the customary 3 edits, you can only make two before it is considered warring.
Comment – 2 revert rule instituted. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
this isn't what this board is for. replied to Master of Puppet's talkpage. You want to administrate Wikipedia beyond vandal-blocking and revert-counting? You'll have to become involved with questions of actualcontent. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment – Master of Puppets, WP:AN3 is not the place to institute permanent editing restrictions [you've not indicated any length of time] and individual administrators have not been empowered to do this anyway. Dbachmann and Camptown are not on any permanent 2rr restrictions, but obviously should still do their best to refrain from edit-warring. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:BrownHairedGirl reported by User:Para (Result:No action taken)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: As an administrator, obviously knows the letter of the policy, but 2 minutes difference is not in its spirit.

BrownHairedGirl is involved in a dispute on WP:EL, where she is failing to get support for her personal opinion. For some reason she targets my edits only, and none of the others. The last time she lost control, she abused admin tools and mass-reverted all my work done after the consensus on WP:GEO in the course of several months without complaints, and her actions were reported to WP:AN/I. She seems to again be starting to do the same [85], and I'm afraid to soon find all my work reverted again by this POV revert warrior. --Para (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is the 4th revert? Yahel Guhan 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Declined. I only see three reverts; that's within 3RR, if pushing it. Also, please consider taking this up with the admin in question, and abstaining from editing the articles in question until you've reached a compromise, so that you have some consensus to help with editing. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Small Text

More nonsense from Para, who didn't even have the courtesy to notify me of this complaint.
Para has been mass-removing links on the basis of changes which Para would like to see made to WP:EL, but for which he has failed to achieve a consensus. Para has been falsely claiming in his edit summaries that he is removing the links "per WT:EL", but despite barraging the page for over a month with his claims that no objection are valid, there is no consensus for his desire changes. After mass-reverting Para's earlier attempt to enforce a guideline which didn't exist, I mass reverted; since then, I have simply been watching out for whatever pops up on my watchlist, and stopped after 3 reverts on this article, even though Para's practice of knowingly making of false claims about being supported by a guideline amounts to disrutive and tendentious editing.

The fundmental problem here is that Para says that I am "failing to get support for her personal opinion". That's back-to-front: it's up to Para to get support for a consensus for any change to the guidelines, but despite not achieving that consensus he ploughs on as if the guideline had been changed in the way he wants, and accuses anyone who objects of "disruption". Simply breathtaking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear administrator, may I please remind you to reread the top of this page and not continue disputes here. Unfortunately I miscounted your disruptive reverts for this report, but luckily they did not lead to yet another reversion spree from your part, despite the tell-tale signs of an out-of-control user, with edit summaries full of typos. I and dozens of others have been happily working on removing redundant external links from Wikipedia articles for months now, and the only users to complain about it have been you and a friend of yours who won't participate in any discussion. You failed to get support for your objections on current practices, and any revert warring isn't helping your case. Everything that can be said about this topic has already been said on WT:EL. Please try to find another venue for your lost cause. --Para (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Para, you filed a 3RR report which was mistaken, and didn't bother to have to courtesy to notify the person about whom you complained. Now, stop telling lies about the lack of consensus for your hobbyhorse, and try to build a consenus around the points where there is agreement, rather than simply trying to grind down anyone who disagrees that black is white. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:MJD86 reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result: 24 hours)


I cleaned the page up a few days ago, and MJD86 reverted it. He has a history of edit warring just for the sake of it on multiple articles (to the point where one had to be fully protected) and has used IP socks to help with his edit warring previously. Scorpion0422 04:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion0422 trashed the page. It's idea of cleaned the page up was hitting the undo button on my edit without even reading it. The trashing up by Scorpion0422 left the section with one sentence then two sentences that were bulleted for some reason. Also it's idea of cleaning up the page is link a list of dogs names to celebrities that have the same first name even without any connection given in the episode or the reference. I do have a previous history of fighting against vandalistic deletions. Most of which were by Scorpion0422 who, as it did in this case, reverts my edits regardless of how much better my edit made that page. Scorpion0422 has accused my supporters of being sock puppets and is now pretending that it's allegations are fact.MJD86 (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Weird how all of your "supporters" are IPs from New Hampshire, which is where your user page used to say you were from. BTW, this page is for 3RR violation reports. Not debating about whether trivia should be included. -- Scorpion0422 05:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. – also received a warning back in february for edit warring, as well. --slakr\ talk / 07:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ncmvocalist reported by User:Amarrg (Result: All warned)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: The user is well aware of the 3RR rule since he has already been blocked once for violating this rule as seen here.

The user is edit-warring on the Raj Kumar article trying to introduce his POV without starting any discussion. I opened up a discussion page in Talk:Raj Kumar to engage a discussion with the user. Though the person participated in the discussion, the user has continued to do reverts without any consensus being reached, calling me a troll and threatening me with admin action. I had to report him for violating the 3RR rule for this. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This report was made in a clear and malicious attempt to block me on a mere technicality as yet another method by which User:Amarrg continues to persistently harass me since before 27 February 2008 or so. Even after being asked to leave me alone here, he continues to target articles that I have significantly contributed to and refuses to leave my talk page alone evidenced-here. If you inspect the various comments he has left on my talk page, he has targeted articles I have significantly contributed to, trying to be disruptive in having these articles deleted rather than being bold and making the necessary changes, or even alerting me without non-constructive templates. He has persistently made remarks in bad-faith both on my talk page, and on others talk pages (if you check his edits around 27 and 28 of February particularly). He deliberately and consciously find ways to make life difficult for editors who disagree with him by targetting their contributions and making edits and placing tags in WP:POINT, rather than giving a reasonable time to editors to improve each issue to a satisfactory standard. His overall trollistic behavior should not be tolerated.
He has given no valid or even reasonable justification for his blatant vandalism here, here and here as he continues to game the system with certain other editors of the Karnataka WikiProject to suit their synthesised and POV based edits that are disruptive to WP:WikiProject India articles. He is in effect gaming the system to suit his POV, so that there are no editors in opposition, particularly those maintaining the assessment department of WP:WikiProject India, being myself (see a notable admin giving recognition for this here). I undid my latest revert here so this report is invalid I would think. However, I request User:Amarrg be blocked for harassment, incivility, vandalism, trollistic behaviour and failure to assume good faith based on his edits and comments made between 27 February 2008 and now (see his edit here for the most recent evidence where he made such remarks directly after he made this very report). Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, the editor who filed this report attempted to make no temporary compromise, unlike my 4th edit. I therefore request an administrator to revert back to the 4th edit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Warned. The accused editor undid the reported 4th revert not long after making it (but still after this report was filed). This, along with the accused editor's relatively good attitude in the article talk page (tone only went sour after the nominator's ill-tempered comments) suggests a certain degree of good faith. BUT, edit warring is still not the answer and such issues should be settled in the talk page and the article left as is until resolved.
Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours. given 1) the first revert was in fact by the nominator; and 2) the nominator's clear lack of bad faith in the article discussion. Warned - 52 Pickup (deal) 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
52 Pickup (deal) 13:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This is silly. Amarrg is one of our best and his record speaks for himself. Ncmvocalist has been disruptive for a few weeks now and its amazing that the admin feels it fit to cut the violator some slack! Ncmvocalist has been revert warring with atleast 4 or 5 other editors on different articles and Raj Kumar is only one in many such. And even on Raj Kumar, Ncmvocalist's edits have been so whimsical and uncalled for that he has to be blocked for simple disruption if not for 3RR. And we have here a new admin using one of our best as a sandbox to try his tools out! Shameful. Sarvagnya 17:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"the first revert was in fact by the nominator;" - and he reverted because Ncmvocalist's edit was simple disruption. Since when have we started blocking people for reverting disruption, vandalism and POV pushing?! And it was Amar who started the discussion and it is clear in the discussion that Ncmvocalist has no case. He made those edits because in his perception Amar is "anti-Tamil-pro-Kannada and he wanted to spite Amar by trolling on Raj Kumar's page because Rajkumar is a Kannada actor and icon. He tried to do it first by carrying out an undiscussed and uncalled for move of Rajkumar which was reverted. Once that was reverted he started being disruptive on the dab page. This is insane. Sarvagnya 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Following the actions across other articles, the block has been lifted. It is clear that multiple articles are involved here, so 3RR was not the place to start this. There are other channels to follow when dealing with this. In a 3RR examination, only that particular article should be under consideration. But Amarrg should remain warned that behaviour like this is not acceptable. Although he is clearly an established editor (and his body of work is indeed commendable), using his previous achievements as leverage in an argument is just not on. It is attitudes like that that drive away potential good editors every day. - 52 Pickup (deal) 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am confused here. I dont see Amar using his contributions as leverage in that discussion. The remark you take exception to seems to be in response to Ncmvocalist's "In case you prefer to be more constructive than being a troll, ...". Can you elaborate please? Sarvagnya 20:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the comment "I have more than 75 DYKs to my name, so dont question me on my research. You are not worthy enough to call me names, your contributions to Wikipedia are hardly anything..." (emphasis added) could very easily be seen as being both an attempt as establishing "leverage" (or "intimidating" another) and as clearly unacceptable behavior. If the phrasing indicates something different to a native Indian, fine. However, it should be noted that this is the English language wikipedia, and that, at least to me as a citizen of the US, that language can very easily be seen as being an attempt at intimidation/leverage, and probably in and of itself less than acceptable. Under the circumstances, it isn't necessarily sufficient cause for any real action, as most people invovled in a heated debate wind up using language they might later regret, and that should be and generally is taken into account, but it is something which all editors should try to avoid whenever possible. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mimibianca reported by User:SWik78 (Result: 12 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [86]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [92]

The editor keeps inserting direct quotes by the artist who created the song in question. There was a discussion started on the article's talk page where the editor was given the opinion by SKS2K6 (talk · contribs) [93], Gwernol (talk · contribs) [94], and myself [95] that these quotes should not be inserted into the article for the reasons of unclear purpose as well as verifiability through a reliable source. Mimibianca keeps reverting back to the version with the quotes without trying to reach a consensus. SWik78 (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vera, Chuck & Dave reported by User:Ultraviolet scissor flame (Result: No violation)


too long article. Image:Paul McCartney & Bono Live8[96] Vera, Chuck & Dave treats it as vandalism.[97][98] Ultra! 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 19:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:68.124.66.87 reported by User:Operation Spooner (Result: No action - not warned)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: No telling if he's been warned since he comes in through different IP's.

Keeps deleting requests for sources. Operation Spooner (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Decision: No action. The IP does seem to be the same for all reverts, and has not been warned. I have now issued a warning. TigerShark (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He's come through different IP's in the past is what I meant. Operation Spooner (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mrund reported by User:Olaf Stephanos (Result: No action - no evidence of warning)

  • Previous version reverted to: [99]


Five reverts in 24 hours, pushing content that clearly violates the Wikipedia standards. Linking to James Randi's personal website, which does not qualify by [105]. Making unreferenced allegations, or insisting on personal elaborations on the provided references. User:Mrund has been reminded of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the article's talk page, but he has almost completely ignored these lengthy discussions. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Decision: No action. I cannot find proof that Mrund had been warned prior to their last revert. However they clearly are aware of it now [106], and I have also issued a warning on their talk page. If somebody has proof, please provide it and it will be reviewed. TigerShark (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wyattmj reported by User:Hu12 (Result:24 hours)

Structured investment vehicle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Wyattmj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

--Hu12 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Wyattmj blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Ronnotel (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)





[edit] User:207.232.97.13 reported by User:Mr Miles (Result: No block)

  • Previous version reverted to: [107]


A short explanation of the incident: User continues to place unreferenced material into this section of the article, despite being reverted by multiple other editors and refuses to explain his actions on discussion page.

Mr Miles 01:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No block. Seems that the editor is adding referenced material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple users reported by User:Fife Club (Result: Page semi-protected)

Resolved.

I'm not involved with this but I am by far the leading contributer to the article State University of New York at Plattsburgh and I just checked my watch list to see what I think is an edit war going on between two other editors, one of which is an IP? Eleven edits in just the past half hour. Before I attempt to fix anything (if necessary), can somebody please take a look and assess what's going on and whether these people need to be warned, and if anything needs to be done to the page now? Thanks Fife Club (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Astanhope reported by User:Queerudite (result: novio)

  • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakr\ talk / 09:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Equazcion reported by User:rachel63 (Result: protected)


I hope I'm doing this right. I don't know what DIFFTIME means. He did all these edits today then said I was a sockpuppet. I think he's an admin, but the rules should be the same for everybody.

A short explanation of the incident. Rachel63 (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Page protected. --slakr\ talk / 09:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Halibutt reported by User:M.K (Result: 24 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [115]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: Contributor several times was blocked due to 3RR [116], so he knows the rules

This is becoming really disruptive, contributor user:Halibutt is involved in prolonged campaign of names changes and variuos distortions. Recently he was informed by neutral administrator that similar campaigns are violations of WP:POINT [117], he was also informed that he violated WP:3RR on the different article and was suggested that further similar disruption will prompt sanctions. It is clear that contributor is following 3RR campaign again and that gentle information to stick on 3RR policy is not working on him. I hope that in this time administrators will take proper actions to stop further campaigns by this contributor. And let me stress that An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Thank you, M.K. (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 10:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)\

[edit] User:Grinsandfun reported by User:Hu12 (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)

Streaming media (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Grinsandfun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

repeatedly re adding redlinks to Streaming media--Hu12 (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Even though there is a slight lack of many warnings which is usual in 3RR cases, it does appear that Grinsandfun (talk · contribs) has broke the 3RR, even after the warning implemented by Hu12 at 15:21. Rudget. 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Johnnie390 reported by User:Jkatzen (Result: novio)


Johnnie309 continually works to change American English forms to British English forms in article about a railway station in Lyon, France without explanation. The language variant policy has been explained on his talk page with no response or let-up in the reverts. Jkatzen (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Article has been reverted to the original form of English (American) and editor has been warned about changing it. —Travistalk 22:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tortugadillo reported by User:Redrocket (Result: 24 hours)

This editor was informed of WP:3RR twice, once here [118] (which was actually premature, and apologized for here [119]), and then here about continued edit warring [120]. In addition, this editor has continually referred to any other edits that remove his own as "vandalism," and reverted them as minor edits. Redrocket (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE:

Not all of these are the exact same revert, but they do revert whatever corrections another editor tries to make to his edits.

Blocked for 24 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Uconnstud reported by User:Jaysweet (Result:Blocked for 24 hours )


I'm not sure if Talk pages count, but this is very annoying. Uconnstud continues to add a link to a comedy video that he thinks will calm everyone down, despite explanations that it is not relevant to the talk page.

Blocked for both the 3RR violations and the inappropriate linking to copyrighted content. Metros (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

you'll notice that on this "reversion" [121] I had included 9 links as well as a question that was summarily deleted. User:Jaysweet even stated he didn't read my talk page comment [122] after I asked him [123]. he simply deleted them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uconnstud (talk • contribs) 22:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Jaysweet User:Colfer2 reported by User:Uconnstud (Result:malformed report, no action)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since Uconnstud was already blocked for this edit war against two separate editors to insert material violating copyright, this seems to be a waste of everybody's time. It is stale anyway.

  • Previous version reverted to: [124]


There is a lot of edit warring going on so the page was article was semi protected. I stated everyone should calm down and maybe enjoy some dave chapelle. That was reverted. So I added in useful references and it was continuously reverted. Users were warned [131] and each one removed their warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colfer2&action=history [132] and [133] Users are tag teaming and utilizing meat puppets to circumvent 3rr. As you can see on Jay talk page they are in conversation with each other [134] and working together Uconnstud (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

you'll notice that on this "reversion" [135] I had included 9 links as well as a question that was summarily deleted. User:Jaysweet even stated he didn't read my talk page comment [136] after I asked him [137]. he simply deleted them Uconnstud (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reversions I made were all for vandalism After the video had first been removed (not by me, but correctly), Uconnstud added the video + random links, which were just copied from the article itself & Google. So my reversions were all for vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colfer2 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to Jaysweet adding the 3RR warning to his page, Uconnstud added it to my Talk page and to Jaysweet's Talk page. So he is just joking around. Colfer2 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I will take no action on this report as it is severely malformed. Please submit a report for each user instead of two editors in one report. Also, follow the directions of the sample report and include times of reverts. Thanks, Metros (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] User:WalterGR reported by User:Kilz (Result: malformed)



  • Link to proof he know the rules: [140]

A short explanation of the incident. The Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML has been a battleground. Over the last week me and another editor have been banned for edit waring. I have learned my lesson. Rather than take matters into my own hands I am reporting the actions here. Admin Scarian has taught me that the 3rr rule is about edit warring. Deleting things to enforce your own opinions. While WalterGR hasnt done multiple reverts, the diffs show he has removed multiple things without discussion on a very contested article.

  1. He has removed the Ars Technica reference, even though it is a news site as well as FanaticAttack without any discussion with other editors.
  2. He has replaced content Admin Scarian removed without any discussion or references.

He is well aware that this rule is about edit warring as he has issued a report on this page.Kilz (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm a bit confused by all of this. I had no idea I was making "acts of war," given that there was already significant discussion on the article's talk page, as you can see here. It was decided that blogs are not acceptable sources. Admin Scarian was involved in this discussion. He posted his comments in this edit.
Regarding the first edit Kilz mentions, my changes were consistent with what we had already discussed on the talk page: that blogs are not to be allowed. I also went ahead and removed some references to open wikis, as per WP:SPS:
  • The Ars Technica reference just quoted Groklaw. Groklaw is a blog.
  • FanaticAttack's "About" page invites users to submit "blog entries".
  • GrokDoc is an open wiki. You can sign up for an account here.
Regarding the second edit, where I replaced content that Scarian removed: yup, I did do that. In good faith. Rather than removing the content entirely, I put a {{fact}} by it, to give other editors a chance to find a good reference.
Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 04:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There was no discussion of any of the sites you removed, all of them from one point of view. Groklaw is not a blog, that Ars Technica links to it does not make Ars Technica unusable but strengthens Groklaws use. But the Issue isnt that Groklaw was used but Ars Technica, which isnt Groklaw.
  • Ars Technica without argument is a news site. zdnet also quotes Groklaw isnt some articles. That doesnt make it unusable.
  • FanaticAttack's page asks for Blogs so that they can be looked at for story ideas. "You can send your ideas (or blog entries) to tips “AT” fanaticattack “DOT” com." It is not asking for you to make blog entries on its site.
  • An example of an open wiki is Wikipedia that allows Anonymous editors to use it. That you must create an account and people are removed proves it isnt open.
That still doesnt make removing them on a contested article without discussion correct. Kilz (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. Please use the report example at the bottom of this page to provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 12:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gni reported by User:68.23.8.245 (Result: 8 hours)

User:Gni has been reverting out different portions of the article which he appears to disagree with (though 4 reversions of the same material within a 24 hour period are provided in the diff's above). Different editors have put the page back, and different sources have been used to try to address his complaints. The discussion has moved to the article's talk page; however, reversion of material has continued. 68.23.8.245 (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User Gni appears to be a single purpose account edit warring here and on other articles, promoting the CAMERA POV, deleting sourced info that doesnt conform to that POV, etc. Reported here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There was another single purpose account involved in reversion, but Gni's edit history reflects work on multiple articles (despite the fact that most of his recent edits are indeed to this one article). The main point I think Boodles and I agree on is the excessive amount of reversions from User:Gni. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
A review of other edits show an effort to insert CAMERA reports into those articles and the CAMERA POV in general, e.g., here, here, here, here, here (a CAMERA associate), etc. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 8 hours. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 12:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Colombiano200 reported by User:PageantUpdater (Result: 8 hours)


WP:BLP Issue regarding height of Natalie Glebova. User claims she is 5'8.5" and keeps reverting to this but there is a reliable sources that shows she's 5'11". PageantUpdater talk • contribs 03:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 8 hours. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 12:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dmcm2008 reported by User:Jza84 (Result: 24 hours)


Fairly new editor who appears to wish an unsourced, unpopular, technically inaccurate and non-consensual phrase included on articles stating that certain towns outside of the City of Liverpool (in North West England) are suburbs of that city. A consensus exists against Dmcm2008's point of view (see here). Huyton isn't the only article involved (there are several), on a cursory glance it was Huyton and Netherton, Sefton that has over 3 reverts. User also threatened to keep editting regardless of feedback.

Simillarly, I'm concerned about Dmcm2008's understanding of civility surrounding this issue. After this post, he recieved this reply. I've also shared that his approach of "truth" and "local knowledge" isn't the right way forwards ([141]) for various reasons.

I would also add that two additional users have witnessed this conflict with Dmcm2008, stating that "they disagree with his edits, "his comments show that he does not wish to find common ground", and that Jza84 is offering constructive dialogue..... and that you (Dmcm2008) should remain civil, and apologise to Jza84 for making imprudent remarks. A short block may be the most appropriate --Jza84 |  Talk  16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jagz reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: 24 hours )

Four complete reverts.Ultramarine (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocked for 24 hours. Moreschi (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Jaysweet reported by User:Uconnstud (Result:no action)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Retaliatory report by editor justly blocked for edit warring, meritless and stale anyway.


1st revert: 20:29, 12 March 2008

There is a lot of edit warring going on so the page was article was semi protected. I stated everyone should calm down and maybe enjoy some dave chapelle. That was reverted. So I added in useful references and it was continuously reverted. Users were warned [143] and each one removed their warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colfer2&action=history [144] and [145] Users are tag teaming and utilizing meat puppets to circumvent 3rr. As you can see on Jay talk page they are in conversation with each other [146] and working together. In all, Jaye did in fact violate a 3rr. Previous report was made [147] but it was stated taht it was severly malformed and must be resubmitted. As a result, I am resubmitting it. Uconnstud (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the parties mentioned.
  • Note, this is about Talk:David Paterson not the article David Paterson. The article was receiving heavy edits due to a breaking news story, that due to N.Y. Gov. Eliot Spitzer's sudden resignation, Paterson will be the next governor. The Talk page was an important venue for making collaborative decisions quickly. Overall, it was a successful joint effort on a high-visiblity site, for an obscure person thrown into the national spotlight.
  • The link to my User Talk:Colfer2 is wrong, no material was deleted. The diffs linked are for User talk:Jaysweet.
  • Jaysweet owns his Talk and can delete.
  • The reverts made by Jaysweet and me on Talk:David Paterson were for Copyvio, so 3RR does not apply.
  • The reverts may have been for obvious vandalism. After the first add of the Chapelle video, Uconnstud put it back in with a list of random links on the article subject and no substantive comments.
  • Jaysweet then filed a 3RR report on Uconnstud. Uconnstud retaliated by filing one on Jaysweet and me.
  • I do not know Jaysweet and as far as I recall I have not edited the same pages as him.
  • Uconnstud was then banned for 24 hours.
  • An anonymous I.P. was then used to make his edits again to the Talk:David Paterson page. [148] I tagged that I.P. as a suspected Sockpuppet of Uconnstud: User talk:199.3.218.137
  • The Sockpuppet tag on 199.3.218.137 was then removed by another I.P., 74.66.11.10, whose edits, such as Talk:St. John's University (Jamaica, NY) (scene of a longstanding edit war over the name) show a similar interest to Uconnstud. So I tagged it as a Sockpuppet: User Talk: 74.66.11.10
  • As I noted there, Uconnstud is interested in the boundaries of Wikipedia policies, see archived Uconnstud User Talk, and also interested in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.
  • Uconnstud's current talk page ends with "Waiting Patiently... going to ride this one out..." and some ideas for new articles.
In summary, this 3RR report is not constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colfer2 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen a 3RR report on an article talk page, with accusations of sockpuppetry as icing on the cake.
  • First, this report is stale by almost 24 hours. The reverting has stopped, so no action is required on our part here. Blocks are preventative, not punitive.
  • Stop editing/deleting/moving/tagging each other's comments on article talk pages. If you don't like someone's comments, respond to them, discuss them, walk away, fly a kite, do something else – but stop deleting comments by other editors. If it happens again and we find out, any or all of you can and probably will be blocked. This is nonsense.
  • Editors can remove comments and warnings on their own user talk pages as they see fit. Once upon a long time ago it was verboten, but it is now allowed. - KrakatoaKatie 18:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If you scroll above there has been blocks that were over 2 days old and over 24 hours. So why is this ignored?
  • I was told by an admin to resubmit it If you look at the link on the report.
  • Had I resubmitted it earlier I would've been circumventing the block.
  • Why is it that I was blocked and the other users if you scroll a bit higher not blocked for reverting a talk page of an article [149]
  • There have been bad faith edits and bad faith accusation and bad faith warnings. [150] Uconnstud (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] User:12.144.110.131 reported by User:Mysteryquest (Result:24 hours )

  • Previous version reverted to: [151]


This editor has reverted the article four or five times despite a warning and a request that they engage in talk. The reverts have all been the same.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jalalabadi reported by User:McTools (Result: 24 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [152]



The vandal reverting is desperately attempting to avoid checkuser being filed on him and his different ips. If you may please revert its last edits.McTools (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked by another admin for 24 hours. MastCell Talk 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Para reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: No action)


Para has been repeatedly trying to amend this guideline without achieving consensus support. There have been massive discussions on the talk page over more than a month and eventually Para achieved agreement of 3 out of 4 remaining participants for a change. Two of the 4 participants want further input, but Para prefers to edit way than to check whether there is a consensus other than amongst those left standing.

Note that while the revision log shows multiple reverts today by me, one of those was a mistaken revert of the wrong edit, and I self-reverted that. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No. If this report doesn't qualify as tendentious, I don't know what does. The page is already protected, and blocks are preventative, not punitive. This is ridiculous. How is that fourth diff a revert? It's a post on the talk page. He has made 3 reverts today. You have also made 3 reverts today, I notice. Just as bad as each other. Moreschi (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Reconsider per disruption, its a slow war on guideline page....
In this case this is obvious Gamming and edit warring which is disruption to a guideline page. Even if this user did not revert more than three times per day, 3RR should not be discounted as a defense against action taken to enforce the Disruptive editing policy. (I'm not advocating others behavior in this case)--Hu12 (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, but in a goodly number of those diffs you've just listed it's still Para and BHG edit-warring away. Either we block both parties (which there is certainly a good case for doing), or we block neither. I see no cause just to block one. Take your pick (and see also here). Moreschi (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Hu12. AS noted here, Para started by unilaterally changing the guidelines, and has persisted in trying again and again and again to find a group of people, however small, will support his change. Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus_in_practice is clear that repeatedly pushing the same point does not amount to a consensus.
Moreschi, if you check back, you will see tat other editors have reverted Para's insertion of a new item in the guideline, and it is not solely me. Can anyone suggest a way of persuading Para to actually seek a consensus per Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus_in_practice? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I see Moreschi's point BHG. This is one of those reports that gets everyone blocked. right or wrong, It still doesn't confer a license to war even if it's true. There has to be a better way to resolve this, and blocking won't help. --Hu12 (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I see Moreschi's point, too. Any suggestions on what that better way might be? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:RFC? For the guideline, not user conduct. As far as I can see the main problem is confusion about where consensus lies - who holds what opinion. RFC should settle that problem. Frankly, I can make neither heads nor tails of what's being fought over, so if you do go for RFC please make the issues very plain. Moreschi (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Colfer2 reported by User:Uconnstud (Result:Reporter warned for personal attacks)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Retaliatory report, requester now blocked again for disruption.


There is a lot of edit warring going on so the page was article was semi protected. I stated everyone should calm down and maybe enjoy some dave chapelle. That was reverted. So I added in useful references and it was continuously reverted. Users were warned [164] and each one removed their warnings http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colfer2&action=history [165] and [166] Users are tag teaming and utilizing meat puppets to circumvent 3rr. As you can see on Jay talk page they are in conversation with each other [167] and working together. In all, Jaye did in fact violate a 3rr. Previous report was made [168] but it was stated taht it was severly malformed and must be resubmitted. As a result, I am resubmitting it. Uconnstud (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I only see two reverts here and each revert is done by a different editor. Metros (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
and it was now fixed. gosh you must have me on your watch list isn't there a WP:Stalk Uconnstud (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps I have 3RR on my watchlist considering I am an administrator. Did you consider that? And you say it's fixed, but I still only see two reverts. Metros (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
or perhaps you're following me around. I think the latter considering my last two edits you were right behind me. Look above " Conversely, just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day." Uconnstud (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
My response is above. There are numerous reasons why this was not 3RR besides the factual inaccuracy of the report. Also it is stale! Have a good weekend everybody. - Colfer2 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it's a fact that you were edit warring. I guess you aren't familiar with WP:Stalk as well. Look at the edits you reverted more than once! Uconnstud (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If I was in NY I would invite you out for a beer! - Colfer2 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks renoved by Metros (talk) at 21:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Uconnstud (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion - I don't believe any 3RR violation has occured although I am going to warn Uconnstud for personl attacks. ScarianCall me Pat 21:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am from Manhattan, this isn't a personal attack. Guys don't ask guys they don't know out for a drink of beer unless they are trying to go out with them (date) I gave user Colfer2 a decline after he asked me out Uconnstud (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's some serious stereotyping right there. It doesn't matter now; I've found no evidence of 3RR violation or edit warring. Please take heed of what other editors are saying about your additions. Any admin can feel free to reverse my decision (if they notify me first, of course). ScarianCall me Pat 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to remove any personal attacks against me, I don't care. I'm more concerned that the resolution was "WARNED", as I think you mean you warned the reporter. Anyway, there is one more matter to clear up, this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.66.11.10&oldid=198280020 I would appreciate it someone would edit it for me. The other page in question is User talk:199.3.218.137 but it seems fine now. Thanks! - Colfer2 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the header. Metros (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] User:Mike Babic reported by User:Rjecina (Result: 24 hrs)

  • Previous version reverted to: [169]


For original version I have his last version before 3RR

This nationalistic SPA account has been warned on talk page about 3RR rule and it has been warned by administrator about POV edits. It is possible to see small difference in wording between 1/2 and 3/4 revert but 1 thing has never changed. Editor has always reverted original article (before he has started to edit on wikipedia) deleting words:Throughout the late Middle Ages, the term Vlach was used for Ortodox Vlachs and Serbs.....

Because of that he has broken 3RR rule with deleting of this 2 lines. On other side I have demanded checkuser because he has made 5th revert from IP address. When this will become official he will be blocked. --Rjecina (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:RucasHost reported by User:GreenJoe (Result: 48 hour block )

  • Previous version reverted to: [174]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [179]

A request for comments was started over the nodaddy link and he still reinserts it. GreenJoe 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion - I have blocked the user for 48 hours. ScarianCall me Pat 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Guinness2702 reported by User:John Anderson (Result:no violation)

  • Previous version reverted to: [180] (I don't know if I am filling this our right)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME I warned Guinness2702 yesterday, both on the article's talkpage and on Guinness2702's own talkpage.

A short explanation of the incident: Guinness2702 has erased information because he/she personally finds it irrelevant. At first, Guinness2702 did not even discuss it on the article's talkpage. Now Guinness2702 does talk about it, but is stubbornly refusing to see the relevance in the information and keeps erasing the information even if the discussion is not over yet. John Anderson 12:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, when you next report a suspected 3RR violation, please use the correct format as listed below. Secondly, please brush up on the 3RR rule: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." One of the four reverts you have listed here occurred in February and another occurred three days ago. Only two of the reverts occurred in the last 24 hours. In fact, you have committed more reverts in the last 25 hours (3) than he has (2). Because of this, I have declined this report as no violation. Metros (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sceptre reported by User:91.12.10.50 (Result:No violation )

  • Previous version reverted to: [185]


The article contained the claim that Verisign never issued any statement about the impact of Sitefinder on non-http protocols. I added a link to such a statement, which is evidently relevant to counteract the article's claim.

User:Sceptre reverted me four times in a row, claiming on User_talk:91.12.10.50 that my edit was vandalism without talking about the facts in the article.

I have only reverted three times, being the one who has made the first edit. I cannot edit his talk page so I could not have warned him. --Xif (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC) (aka 91.12.10.50)

By the way, sorry that I've not registered myself yet. --91.12.10.50 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Declined. This lacks any warnings and it would appear you have reverted the same amount of times. Instead of issuing blocks on your IP or another user, I'd suggest discussing the change on the articles talk page before re-adding. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have only reverted three times, being the one who has made the first edit. I cannot edit his talk page so I could not have warned him. --Xif (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC) (aka 91.12.10.50)

[edit] User:Dance With The Devil reported by User:Supergreenred (Result:)

  • Previous version reverted to: [190]
  • I recommend blocking both editors. Both have violated 3RRV but Dance With The Devil who often reverts for user UltraMarine does not participate on the talk page. This is clearly a content dispute. No excuse for edit warring.Supergreenred (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I was going to revert myself to cool down the edit war, but an administrator rolled back the ip's edits before I could. Also I think that the reporter is a sock puppet of the anon 76.126.64.74 (talk · contribs) who was removing sourced information without consensus. It is very deceitful of him to suggest that "both editors be blocked." of Dance With The Devil (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Dance with the Devil's behavior has also been problematic on India related articles, with wholesale unexplained reverts and empty threats.Bakaman 03:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not a party to the edit warring, but I am a party to discussing these very changes on the talk page, which is currently a matter of unresolved dispute. Saying that the anon editor was removing things without consensus is not exactly right since Ultramarine added that material without consensus, and I objected. Specifically, to using The Weekly Standard to make claims of historical facts on a history article. I think an easy compromise would be to find alternative sources for the same claims, if they are valid. In any case, its very bad to edit war and not discuss any of these issues on the talk page. It makes it look that your reverting is a knee jerk support of Ultramarines contentious and problematic additions. I also note that you were edit warring on the American Terrorism article as well, with 3 reverts, at least. I think a cool down period is a good idea. Now having said that, I think Dance with the Devil is generally a good editor so maybe just a warning would be best. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. He seems to acknowledge that he needed to cool down, and that is good enough for me.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni33 claims regarding the content dispute is false. See the talk page. Agreed that this report by Supergreenred is suspicious. This is the first action ever taken by Supergreenred who first appeared today.[196] Agree that Dance With The Devil is a good editor who would self-revert if he could. Best action would probably be to semi-protect the page.Ultramarine (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with semi-protection but its absurd to deny this is a content dispute. A quick glance at the talk page shows that. This is not the board for raises suspicions on editors motives, appearances, etc, either. Its for the 3RR rule. Its a wall we are not supposed to cross over. Period. A firm warning is in order at the very least. And this goes for you too, as you actually provoke edit wars all the time UltraMarine, by almost never respecting the consensus process. This is not understatement, either.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mattelot reported by User:Ehheh (Result:No violation )


Single purpose account. Has been reinserting POV language into this article for a long time now. Ehheh (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Each of you has only reverted 3 times in 24 hours, please don't revert again, either of you. I've issued warnings as well. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I did 3, he did four - now up to five. - Ehheh (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:70.104.89.107 reported by User:GreenJoe (Result:No violation )

  • Previous version reverted to: [197]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [202]

He keeps re-adding himself to the list. GreenJoe 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours. No violation. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:J Greb reported by User:Rockfang (Result: warned )

  • Previous version reverted to: 12:08pm


The above times are in the US Pacific time zone. This started with me tagging an image Moshikal uploaded as being fair use disputed here. At that time, I noticed his talk page was extremely long. I decided to help him out and add archiving to his talk page here. After which, I informed him of it here. I was then repeatedly reverted (and did reverts myself) as shown above. The situation was discussed both on my talk page and and J Greb's talk page. I have since stopped because I do not want to break the 3RR policy. I would hope this doesn't go ignored because this user is an admin. Rockfang (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note at the User's talk page. That said, it's rather bad form (to the point of being disruptive) to remove image upload warnings before the user has noted that they have seen them. I understand being bold, but to continuously revert without discussion? How about let the user respond? I see by their contributions that they are an active user. As for J Greb's actions, he's a new admin, else, he probably would have (as I likely would have) reverted you and protected the talk page after your second reversion. (Which is annoying, personally, because it's obnoxious to force an admin to protect someone else's talk page. That's disruptive.) See WP:BRD, and m:The Wrong Version, among other pages, for more information. If archiving this user's talk page is of such vital import to you, then I suggest that you at least begin a dialogue with the user. I hope this clarifies. - jc37 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. If Moshikal would have reverted my change I would have not put the archiving back on. And I do understand that waiting for a reply from Moshikal would have been better. That being said, J Greb still broke the 3RR which is still the issue being addressed here. Him being a new admin doesn't excuse him from following policy.--Rockfang (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but neither does it you for attempting to (let's presume unknowingly) being disruptive. It's one of J Greb's responsibilities as an admin to attempt to prevent disruption. So, if I read your comments correctly, you want him blocked for restoring the talk page from your disruptive actions? I doubt you'll get much traction from anyone on that. Especially when he could just have easily protected the page and blocked you. You are, of course, welcome to see if you find any supporters to this wikilawyering, but I'd respectfully suggest dropping it before someone less polite than I comments or, possibly even takes action, in a way that you might not appreciate. I'll end with a quote from the top of this page:
  • "Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked. It is up to the administrator's discretion whether to take action. Conversely, just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day." - jc37 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I never stated I want J Greb to be blocked. The thing is, he broke a wikipedia policy and I don't want it to go unnoticed. As long as an uninvolved admin makes a decision on this, I'm fine with it. Either way.--Rockfang (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Warned. – Actually, if I was going to block anyone it would be the reporter, because I genuinely understand why someone would repeatedly revert in this case, as it involves a pretty big change to a person's talk page, which is usually the only way we can get in touch with users. However, I truly believe that both editors were acting in good faith, and it wasn't too ridiculous of a violation (i.e., it only just barely broke 3RR and there weren't personal attacks or whatnot). Though, both editors should consider this their only warning. Should something like this present itself again, I would suggest going directly to the administrators' noticeboard to ask for a third opinion instead of revert warring, as it will bring about faster and more definitive results.
While I'm on the topic, a word of advice: do not add/remove anything automated to anyone else's user/user talk pages without them asking you to do so. Sure, they don't own the pages, but it's common courtesy to avoid doing anything that might, on the off chance, provoke the user. Frequently, people tend to view it as an intrusion, much like it would be if you were to get on someone's computer and rearrange their desktop icons. Even though it might look/work better, and even if the person might just keep it anyway to avoid a confrontation, they may silently resent it. So, while it may be well-intentioned, it is our custom to pretty much leave people to do their own thing on their user and talk pages, just so long as they aren't doing something that conflicts with our other policies. This is even more important when it comes to stuff like bots, archiving, and talk pages, as like I said, talk pages are usually the only way of contacting a user until they confirm their email; so, automatically making threads "disappear" will be particularly confusing to newcomers.
Thus, it's always best to avoid being bold when it comes to the user space. First ask the user politely, and 9 times out of 10 they will be eager to let you set up the bot since it's kind of cool and reduces the amount of crap they have to do themselves. :P Long story short, of all of the places to have an edit war, avoid having one in the user space, as it almost always results in bad things happening— whether it be to those involved in the edit war or the user on whose page it is done. --slakr\ talk / 17:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:FCBarsalona reported by User:McTools (Result: protected)


This article should be protected, I requested protection but was ignored.--mCtOOls 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Page protected. --slakr\ talk / 17:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.138.133.89 reported by User:edgarde (Result: already blocked)

Anon removes unflattering information from BLP, especially that pertaining to a recent (and sourced) drug bust. (Also reverts to formatting that is contrary to WP:MOS, especially unnecessary capitalization.) This appears to be the same editor who under another IP address performed similar sanitizing a few weeks ago.[206] [207] [208] [209] Arguments for these edits are they are "defamatory" and "inappropriate". These statements are via Edit summary only; will not discuss on Talk page despite repeated invitations. edg ☺ ☭ 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In a new development, we now have some Talk page discussion. However, this is followed by a 5th revert. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Already blocked. --slakr\ talk / 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:68.121.110.57 reported by User:Operation Spooner (Result: semi-protected)


  • 3RR warning on his user discussion page under slightly different IP (68.124.66.87): [210]

Deleting templates that are asking for sources. Operation Spooner (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Page protected. – I semi-ed the page, since it looks like the dude's IP just keeps changing and he'll continue on revert warring. Feel free to update this if something changes. --slakr\ talk / 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mattelot reported by User:Eruhildo (Result: 24 hours )


See my comment on the article's talk page. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Result: - I have blocked User:Mattelot for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Desione reported by User:Fowler&fowler (Result: 55 hours )


four reverts in less than 24 hours on Company rule in India:

I left a note on his talk page, but he seems unrepentant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yep. 55 hours, seeing as this is a second offence. Moreschi (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User: Scjessey reported by User:Andyvphil (Result: warned; voluntary non-editing of article for next 24 hours )


  • 1st revert: 14:07, 16 March 2008 "m (rv vandalism and POV - see talk page)"
  • 2nd revert: 02:47, 17 March 2008 "m (rv to last version that made any sense at all)"
  • 3rd revert: 12:27, 17 March 2008 "m (rv numerous POV, false statements. Please seek consensus on the talk page before destroying a featured article)"
  • 4th revert: 12:40, 17 March 2008 "m (Undid revision 198842236 by Realist2 (talk) - rv again. Please seek consensus on talk page)"
  • 5th revert: 13:06, 17 March 2008 "m (fix broken, inaccurate, POV stuff. Please seek consensus for ANY changes. See most recent discussion on talk page.)"


Scjessey is currently the most active and least cautious of a group of editors who are striving to retain ownership of what is now, by a factor of more than two,[211] the most visited page on Wikipedia. Rather than, as Dispute Resolution policy calls for, balancing what they view as "negative material" on the subject of the article (such as the ADA(!) ratings of Barack Obama, or any mention of his problem, now all over the news, with his pastor's sermons) with their own "side of the story"WP:DR, they demand prior "consensus" to any edit, which consensus they withold without engaging in much meaningful discussion or any compromise. Now, Scjessey is engaging in mass unconsidered reverts of work by multiple editors, sometimes with misleading edit summarys (most obviously, "rv vandalism") and falsely marking his reverts as minor. He's restoring outright errors (the mistitling of the pronunciation cite and the misattribution and misquotation of Soetoro-Ng spring to mind) and deleting "pro-Obama" material (the community-organizing info and the coming back to Chicago to do voter registration when he could probably have gotten a Supreme Court clerkship are obvious examples) that I'm sure he would be quite happy with if he actually looked at it, as well as the NPOV stuff he doesn't want to see. And he's violated 3RR. Violated 4RR, actually. I warned him to self-revert but he's only consented to revert "as much as he can". Not good enough, I think. Andyvphil (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree, I asked him to user the discussion page or even to use neutrality tags if he had a serious concern about pov but rather reverted the whole lot. He has a fundamental liberal bias (much like the media) (hey im liberal, but i can spot bias a mile off), and there seems to be a pattern where negative info is reverted instantly. Realist2 (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is true that it appears I have violated the three-revert rule. I will accept a temporary block if an administrator deems this appropriate. I believe that even a cursory investigation of my editing history, taken into context with the ongoing discussion at Talk:Barack Obama will offer some justification for my behavior; nevertheless, I am prepared to voluntarily cease editing the Barack Obama article for 24 hours as a good faith gesture. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Warned. – Cool, then no block is needed, just so long as you stay clear of the article for the next 24 hours. :P Just be sure to keep using the talk page to try to avoid this in the future. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 18:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mrbelial reported by User:Moonriddengirl (Result: 31 hours)

(Also, less formally: 23:16, 5 March 2008)

See also earlier, additional reverts:

User is obviously attempting to game the system by remaining under the 3RR threshold in spite of warnings that doing so may still result in a block. This editor, brought to my attention yesterday on my talk page by an editor with whom I have at most had tangential dealings, is by the evidence of his talk page resisting good faith efforts of other contributors to reach consensus. He seems to have stopped responding to such efforts on February 25th, based on the article's talk page. (Just to note: The article was protected on March 5th for "heavy vandalism" by AndonicO (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) following repeated insertion of this same material by anonymous IPs. The question of sock puppetry has been raised with this user, who has neither confirmed nor denied.) Though as an admin I am inclined to follow WP:3RR and block for edit warring in spite of the >24 hour time, I have currently no experience with 3RR matters and would appreciate review by admins with more experience in this area. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. – Although this isn't a three-revert rule kind of thing, it definitely falls under disruptive editing, as the user fails to seek consensus, multiple editors feel the article should not reflect the editor's changes, and he has continuously reverted over a long period of time despite that opposition. --slakr\ talk / 18:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Piotrus reported by User:M.K (Result: 24 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [212]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: contributor was already blocked by admin due to violation of 3RR [213]

This is really disrupting. Another contributor involved in edit warring, that is most troubling in this case that particular contributor not even changing article version which is contested, but also trying to distort cited publications consistently; despite many pleas to stop. M.K. (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Update another article is affected Simonas Daukantas [214]. Wondering how long this edit warring by particular contributor will lasts? M.K. (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your decision was revoked by User:Zscout370‎. You can see User talk:Zscout370‎ for the details. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Piotrus contacted me and told me that he was too experienced for the 3RR rules to apply to him and that he had managed to convince an admin to unblock him at IRC, and then lectured me on the risk of being de-admined and told me that I was lucky he had woken up in good mood. I do note that the admin who unblocked him still felt that he had violated 3RR, but felt that other parties had too (not really a reason to unblock). I checked the talk page, but couldn't find the discussion. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah ... indeedie. At least that wasn't the unblocking rationale. ;) Not the best of situations. The unblock and process seem to have made a few people unhappy. Maybe it's time to update the unblocking guidelines on Wikipedia:Unblock#Unblocking, because they are obviously way out of line with current practice. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
NOTE Another user has raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Piotrus_incident:_policy_corrections_needed_either_way. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:TeerGrub reported by User:GreenJoe (Result: 31 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [215]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [221]

He seem to be involved in a revert war and won't listen to reason. GreenJoe 23:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. – it's pretty clear this person knows about 3RR/not edit warring given his first edit under this account. --slakr\ talk / 01:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also keep an eye on 204.62.193.69 and 70.176.235.154. Based on contribution patterns, comments, and language almost identical to post on another forum (http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.email/), it appears these may all be the same person with an agenda that is something other than encyclopedic. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, better URL to newsgroup post that appears linked to TeerGrub/204.62.193.69/70.176.235.154 is http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.email/browse_thread/thread/de72d8d57db0da17/ea032d836db105b3#ea032d836db105b3 Thirdbeach (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:HAl reported by User:Kilz (Result: Incomplete)


But User:HAl has past knowlage of the rule.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: warring
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [222]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [223]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [224]


A short explanation of the incident. Kilz (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Hal has been engaged in edit warring. He is reverting good faith edits by me that included a complete rewrite of a section. He is removing dates and {{fact}} tags. Hal has been warned about this behavior multiple times and has been banned for it. Yet after discussing the edits, requesting references and doing everything to explain my point, Hal just reverts. He may not have crossed the 3rd revert. But he is clearly breaking the spirit of the rule. Kilz (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually anybody can should notice that i made the original edit to add infomation on the positive notes (citations by Updegrove and Webbink) on OSP licensing in the Office Open XML article. That is an original cited edit and not a revert. You have been the one removing those edits several times. If anything you are the one editwarring. I hope you reported yourself! Anybvody can easily spot that in what yuo can 1st revert and 2nd revert i actually have made original edits wadded cited information on OSP licensing. However you have been removing that information several times. I agree that i have several times removed some dates but that is because the dates are already part of the citations in the same section. user:Kilz was adding this unnescesary dates in the article that were redundant to the dates in the citations. However user:Kilz has been removing my original cited edits several times and inparticular the quote of Red Hat's Mark Webbink on OSP licensing. If the literal comments of RedHat are no longer relevant in a section about compatiblity with OSS licensing then what quotes are? I think the edit history of user:Kilz shows a months long list of entirely and exclusivly edits negative on Office open XML and Standardization of Office Open XML with for instance user:WalterGR. I don't think removed redundant dates is edit warring however I think removing original citations of relevant sources is. And that is exactly what user:Kilz has been doing. hAl (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
If the admins would look at the reference edit "Previous version reverted to:" and compare it to the last revert of Hal's you will see they are almost exactly alike. Even though I have made numerous edits and changes. Hal has wipped them out. In an effort to make the article as he wants it. Not working with others , but enforcing his will. Even after being told he has original research problems, that his sources in other articles said thier quotes were taken out of context, and adding dates. None of the changes are there. He has ignored an attemptr to talk about the issue and multiple edits to try and work it out. His excuse? Im at fault because I added and removed things he added. Kilz (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to admins - It's certainly edit warring between the two users but I can't see a clear cut 3RR violation. ScarianCall me Pat 09:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 13:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pietervhuis reported by User:Miyokan (Result: 72 hours )


Repeat offender, user has been blocked twice before for edit warring.

3RR violation.Miyokan (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a 3RR violation per se as the last 3 diffs are a different dispute from the first. But none-the-less I have blocked for 72 hours for edit warring. Could all parties involved please use discussion to resolve disagreements, please. ScarianCall me Pat 09:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:157.228.118.212 reported by User:realtycoon (Result:31 hours ) Three-revert rule violation on Template:Alexander the Great (disambiguation). 157.228.118.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Previous version reverted to: [34]


1st revert: DIFFTIME 2nd revert: DIFFTIME 3rd revert: DIFFTIME 4th revert: DIFFTIME Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME A short explanation of the incident. Greek POV pushing by 157.228.118.212. Remove reference to Greek and save for the article. This is a controversial issue Realtycoon (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The diffs are wrong, but I looked at the history of the article in question, and it is a violation. Blocked for 31 hours; IP address and no creation blocks. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC) My apologies, this is the first time using this tool. I didn't complete the diffs properly. Thanks for your prompt response. Realtycoon (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This guy is still at it. He is continuing to revert using 157.228.98.181 Realtycoon (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Redthoreau reported by User:Mattisse (Result: page protected)


I have been tolerant of this person over and over, explained the 3RR to him etc. He will not stop. Mattisse (Talk) 01:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Poorly formed report. WP:3RR says "Consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule." All but one of the above edits were carried out in the same one long set of consecutive edits by a single editor, with no other edits by any other editor in between. Therefore, they would (generally) all (except one) count as at most one revert for purposes of this rule. Also, the edits are not listed in order of time, making it more confusing. There were other earlier edits, not listed above, still within the same 24-hour period, which may or may not have been reverts. (non-admin opinion). --Coppertwig (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Matisse takes advantage of the fact that he is better versed in Wiki reporting/manipulation of policy, but I am 100 % sure that if I have violated 3RR (which I dispute) then he has as well in the same article. He is notorious for presenting situations out of context and him and "truth" constantly appear to be distant enemies. I would only ask any administrator to view the overall situation and not the snippets of what he will selectively show you. I have had the unfortunate pleasure of being harassed by him for quite some time now, and each time I only reply back with the exact same thing he sends to me. I have faith that the moderators of wikipedia will be able to see this situation for what it is, and not what he will present it to be. Redthoreau (talk TR 02:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Not well versed enough to file this complaint correctly. This one is malformed. I have never succeed in filing any 3RR complaint. By the way, feel free to stop following me around any time. Mattisse (Talk) 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Page fully protected for five days. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 06:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:64.25.184.27 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:24 hours )

  • Previous version reverted to: (added on each revert)


There was a revert between #1 and #2, but I can't quite get the diffs to line up

Comment: Regardless of whether the edits are justified as NPOV, which I dispute, they are not fixing BLP violations, so do not have an exemption from 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It seems rather odd to me that QuackGuru came into this revert war all of a sudden. Until hard evidence comes up in the form of more contributions I am going to hold back from a RFCU--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 02:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
24 hour block. Vsmith (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)