Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive71

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:Thfrang and User:123.2.251.149 reported by User:Fattyjwoods (Result: )

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]

Possibilty of sock-puppetry as the user clearly uses two accounts (ip and account) for edit warring. Many incidents of personal attacks in edit summaries as well as personal attacks on user talk pages. Has been warned several times - sick and tired of having to revert his edits as he does not provide reliable sources for his claims. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 05:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Diffs span more than 24 hours. 8th revert does not appear to me to be a revert, (adding a ref and changing a number which the same user had put there), so there is no 24-hour period with 4 reverts, therefore no 3RR violation. I encourage both users to make more use of the article talk page. (non-admin opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I think the users are aware of the 3RR rule and is purposely avoiding the 24hr mark and then edit warring again on the next day. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.248.59.67 reported by User:Domer48 (Result: No action)



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [2] (via edit summary)
  • Diff of 3RR warning on user talk page (actually version link; first post to talk page): 09:37, 19 April 2008 ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • User indicates knowledge of 3RR rule in edit summary of 4th revert (see in list of reverts).

They are edit warring over the addition of this cat, Category:U.S. State Department designated terrorist organizations. Through edit summaries, and talk page, I have attempted to reduce tension, and allow the editor to self revert. posted by Domer48 at 10:18 and 10:23 19 April 2008. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added information (mostly in italics) to this report. Domer48 has done 3 reverts (non-admin opinion). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither of them made 4 reverts so I'm a little hesitant to block. Although I have prot'd the article for a week. Solve disputes on talk pages please. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is obviously 4 reverts there, I have shown them clearly. That Cat has been reverted 4 times, could you possibly show me how it is only 3. --Domer48 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • No sufficient 3RR warning given. A 3RR warning in an edit summary does not count, and the only warning given on the talk page was after the fourth revert, a "revert or I will report you" warning. There's no indication that this user properly understood 3RR, and he has not reverted (or even edited) since the "warning". Talk it out, guys. Request denied. - Revolving Bugbear 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No sufficient 3RR warning givenWhat was this here, in addition to the edit summary warning? In addition, the User indicates knowledge of 3RR rule in edit summary of 4th revert, as mentioned by another Editor above? So you have one admin who can't count, and one who dreams up another excuse for this editor. Ha you have to laugh sometimes. --Domer48 (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case there is any doubt left, that the editor was well aware of 3RR see here, (check the time) and still made the 4th revert (check the time). "There's no indication that this user properly understood 3RR,(Oh yes there is) and he has not reverted (or even edited) since the "warning". Now why would he edit, having breached 3rr, had the page protected on their version. The he indicates something to me, I just don't know what? --Domer48 (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Carl.bunderson reported by User:65.93.210.190 (Result:Stale-Already determined)

A poll was done on this talk page. This user did not like the results and crossed out the poll and made his own poll and later voted in it. He was told to stop crossing out polls by several users (on ANI, link) but does not stop. He is not admin so he has no right to cross out polls. He is already aware of 3RR. Also, while edit warring he engages in name calling such as calling people "blind" and "idiot" (link, and link).


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.190 (talk • contribs) 02:09 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If the above report was stale, this is even more so, and appropriate remedies have been applied to the article in question. Repeated reports tend to appear more as WP:POINT violations than protecting the encyclopedia from harm. If a remedy is really required, it lies elsewhere, but attempted relitigation when this board is functus officio is unlikely to be received with equanimity. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Man I'm sick of this: admins doing absolutely nothing about this Carl.bunderson who is out of control while the have banned other users indef for the samething! What's the reason? Is it because he says he's a Christian on his user page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.190 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If you intend to participate often on hotly-contested issues, it would be to your advantage to create an account. Please remember to sign your comments. Personal attacks against other editors don't make your views more persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:12.227.159.219 reported by User:Urzatron (Result: 24 hours)

User is edit warring several editors, determined to change Star Wars entry out of production order and into "in-universe" order for film chronology. Understood warning clearly; reverted a seventh time anyway.


  • Blocked for 24 hours. I have told him that I will lift the block if he agrees to stop reverting and discuss the matter civilly on the talk page. WaltonOne 09:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nukes4Tots reported by User:Ling.Nut (Result:Premature)

  • User:Nukes4Tots is at 2RR on Stockton massacre, diffs here and here.. Note the edit summaries... He/she won't get to 3RR on my dime 'cause I'm not gonna revert again... but the problem remains. I templated his/her talk page; left an explanation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR on Talk:Stockton massacre (diff here). Ling.Nut (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, this page is for reporting actual rather than possible future breaches of 3RR. If the editor breaches, please bring it back, properly formatted as below, please. But it's much better to discuss the issue on the relevant article's Talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Grrr. He'd 'a been 3RR if I had been stupid enough to revert again. Admins are supposed to... you know... do something helpful. But whatever. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting there is NO remedy, just that we cannot act pre-emptively on 3RR. I assume you have already warned him of 3RR? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
As it says in this thread, immedaitaely above: Yes. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Then I can only assume the warning had its intended effect. Case solved. At least he can't deny awareness hereafter. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent). Thanks. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Elampon and User:כתר reported by Fut.Perf. (Result:both blocked)

  • Three-revert rule violation and harassment on my user talk page by two users in tandem.

Elampon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Time reported: 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous version: 20 April 16:14

  1. 16:21, 20 April 2008
  2. 16:33, 20 April 2008
  3. 16:47, 20 April 2008
  4. 16:58, 20 April 2008
  • Diff of warning: here

כתר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Previous version: 19 April, 21:09

  1. 21:31, 19 April 2008 (as 85.75.93.132)
  2. 16:31, 20 April 2008
  3. 16:49, 20 April 2008
  4. 17:03, 20 April 2008

Warning: 16:51

Elampon is a new disruptive editor who was also edit-warring and violating 3RR in article space(on Ancient Macedonian language); כתר is an obvious reincarnation or bad-hand sock of some experienced user who created this account only in order to harass me. —Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, FPaS, if you're paranoid that's your problem, not mine or WP's. I, politely, asked you to clarify to me whose user I'm a sock of. You never did. You just kept silently reverting every comment I made without replying. ktr (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Elampon blocked for 100 hours, the other one blocked indefinitely. Requiescat in pace. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.193.176.236 reported by V-train (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

The Harry Potter Lexicon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 71.193.176.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


  1. 05:46, 20 April 2008
  2. 05:50, 20 April 2008
  3. 00:10, 21 April 2008
  4. 00:11, 21 April 2008
  5. 00:35, 21 April 2008
  • Diff of warning: here
Blocked for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:GijsvdL reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: See result)


  • Previous version reverted to: [3] (not sure what exactly is meant here by 'previous')

Editor keeps removing references that are in full accordance with WP:COS, despite ample explanation on the talk page and several warnings. User is not disputing relevance (the other books in the series are kept) but insists that my name is not allowed to appear on the internet. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note Guido den Broeder is notorious on the Dutch wikipedia for selfpromotion and related problems. He's under strict supervision of a mentor, and currently blocked for two weeks. See here his track record on blocks. Regards, JacobH (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (sysop on Dutch wikipedia)
User:JacobH is a single-purpose account, taking part in the same edit war. Enough said. As explained already in 30 other places: I have no mentor, block is random by another mob member and is being dealt with. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_this_3RR.3F about this case. A EN.wiki sysop already states my reverts are valid. Note also that JacobH is not a single-purpose account. JacobH is a NL.wiki sysop. As an addition: NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder for the same behaviour. He's also blocked at NL.wiki at the moment. GijsvdL (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No such measures have been taken. Since user keeps repeating this lie (check with nl:Arbcom, note that the previous random block was lifted by the Arbcom), can something further be done? Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Anybody may visit NL.wiki IRC to verify. GijsvdL (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The IRC is not a part of nl:Wikipedia. The Arbcom is.
Meanwhile, it has been confirmed (village pump) that these actions are also a violation of en:copyright, and I will treat them so. There are already Arbcom procedures at nl:Wikipedia against this mob for similar violations (note, however, that the cases are incessantly vandalized by same users, so again check with nl:Arbcom). I will add no more and await your decision. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
At IRC there are sufficient sysops online to verify that Guido is lying about the NL.wiki arbcom-decision. GijsvdL (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to try something different today: I won't block you if both of you just stop editing chess articles and use discussion to work out your disagreements. Both of you are not allowed to edit a chess article (Except to remove blatantly obvious vandalism/libel) until some progress is made between you. If you wish, I can help mediate the discussion. ScarianCall me Pat! 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have clashed with Guido before (on the English Wikipedia), so I will not take any actions here. I just want to say that he does have a mentor on the Dutch Wikipedia, appointed by the Dutch ArbCom. Guido doesn't accept the mentoring, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The main reason for his problems on the Dutch Wikipedia is self-promotion, just like here. And checking the VPP discussion started by Guido indicates that it has not been confirmed that the removal of these links (books written by Guido and published by his own company) is a copyright violation at all. My suggestion would be to warn GijsvdL to be more careful about the 3RR (it is unclear to me whether he was aware of this policy), and to strongly warn Guido den Broeder against inserting any form of reference or link to his own work or work of his company, to avoid running in the same trouble here as he has on the Dutch Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, please check with nl:Arbcom, also read up on Dutch law, and yes, GijsvdL was aware, he was warned several times and was already active on this page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Dutch law is irrelevant here, I have checked the Dutch WikipediaThe same arbcom page that undid your second-to-last block, only four days ago, also confirmed the mentoring], and could you point me to the place were GijsvdL was informed about our WP:3RR policy? It's unclear to me what you mean by "this page", but if you mean this page, then he hasn't edited it before your report here.Fram (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have been informed about 3RR as follows: It is not currently 3RR (currently at 3) and if it was taken to 3RR I wouldn't block anyway, because it is clearly removing self-promotion. Those aren't references, they're just adverts for the books. Black Kite 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC) - GijsvdL (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
@Fram: You missed the Arbcom procedure where this so-called mentorship is contested. nl:Wikipedia falls under Dutch law, which says that a mentor can only be appointed if the pupil requests it. There is plenty of jurisprudence. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think nl: falls under Dutch law? It's hosted in the same way as all the other Wikimedia projects. The fact that it uses the Dutch language is entirely irrelevant for the jurisdiction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have given the link where Dutch Arbcom, four days ago, confirmed the mentoring. You contest it, but I have seen no posts from either ArbCom or the mentor that contest it, so for the purposes of Wikipedia, the mentoring is still valid. As for Dutch law: that is completely irrelevant here. A website can have its own rules of participation. Dutch law also forbids the silencing (blocking) of people, but that does not apply to a private website. But you have accused GijsvdL of lying (see above), while he has done no such thing. You are blocked and a mentor has been appointed by the arbcom (which recently confirmed this). You can contest these measures, but to deny them and to accuse another user of lying for pointing them out is way out of line. Fram (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to say this in Dutch: waar in godsnaam gaat deze ruzie over? Jullie zijn aan het stoeien als twee kleuters in een zandbak. Hij begon, nee hij, nee hij, nee hij, ik vind je stom, jij bent stom, nee jij bent stom. Zien jullie zelf niet dat jullie van een mug een olifant aan het maken zijn? Als je bloeddruk zo hoog oploopt dat je je niet meer normaal kan gedragen, zorg dan dat je iets anders gaat doen. Ga de afwas doen, boodschappen, een spelletje, wat dan ook, alles behalve Wikipedia. Translated in English per a message left on my talk page: What the hell is this dispute about? You are fighting like two babies in a sandbox. "He started it, no he did, no he did, no he did, I don't like you, I don't like you." Can't you see that you're making a mountain out of a molehill? If your blood pressures rises to the point you can't behave properly, make sure you're gonna do something else. The dishes, groceries, a game, anything, but Wikipedia. AecisBrievenbus 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • To clarify, my previous comment in Dutch was a stern reprimande wrt the behaviour of both editors. I do think GijsvdL has a point though. Guido den Broeder has a habit, both here and on nl:, of inserting his own, self-published books as further readings. Those books are probably relevant and authoritative, so he probably remains inches within WP:COI. GijsvdL has objected to this. The merits of this objection should be assessed on the relevant talk pages, which appears to be taking place. But the response can never be to edit war to get the books in or out of the article, which is what both sides have done here. AecisBrievenbus 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I have no such habit, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
        • You don't? A short selection: [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]? And the userfied, previously AFD'd User:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging, about the organization you co-founded, where you list yourself in the references no less than three times? And what about your consistent edit warring to remove information that doesn't conform to your personal opinion? See for instance nl:Myalgische encefalomyelitis and nl:Ongedifferentieerde somatoforme stoornis. Add to that the ridiculous accusations of vandalism and personal attacks. And what about this edit, where you told an editor you were editwarring with "I will see you soon." Can you not see how that can be felt as threatening? You weren't placed under mentorship for nothing, were you? There are no less than four threads about you over at nl:Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina voor moderatoren/RegBlok at the moment, and somehow this is everyone's fault but yours? AecisBrievenbus 23:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Please strike out your comments. They are unrelated to this page and I find them offensive. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I would appreciate a ruling since user insists on further escalation. [9] Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
            • We don't like escalation, we just felt responsible to warn EN.wiki community about Guido. If EN.wiki enjoys his behaviour, no problem, please keep him here. GijsvdL (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have raised this issue on the conflict of interest noticeboard. This is more appropriate, since the dispute revolves around the allegation that Guido has violated WP:COI, and Guido's denial that he has done so. Any mediation and dispute resolution is most likely to come from that direction. This discussion has sunk to the level of flaming, so I recommend closing it. AecisBrievenbus 22:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A ruling has already been given by Scarian: [10]. Therefore, this discussion is already closed. Furthermore, the page has been protected by AGK (expires 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC))). Please stop posting to this thread. If you have things to discuss, please find an appropriate place to discuss them. This page is not for discussion. Every post here takes up space on administrators' watchlists. If more 3RR violations occur, please list diffs according to the standard format. By the way, "previous" means "before", "earlier". In order to prove that something is a revert, you need to show that there was a version at an earlier time that's the same as (or similar to) what the person is changing it to. Otherwise, it might not be a revert but just an edit that puts in new information. The time on the "previous version reverted to" should be an earlier time than the times of the versions being compared in the diffs. That doesn't matter now for this report because Scarian has already ruled on it. (Edit conflict; non-admin opinion) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I do want to say something in defence of Guido den Broeder. Guido den Broeder has received a very unwelcome welcome on the Dutch Wikipedia. In fact I do think that he was not treated according to the policy Welcome the newcomer and that has influenced the relationship from the beginning. What is really disturbing that the fight is taken to this wiki. Guido den Broeder is not an easy one, but I do want to ask the Dutch to stick to the Dutch Wikipedia for fighting. It almost feels like an obsession how obsessed people are with Guido den Broeder. Londenp (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:G2bambino reported by User:Lonewolf BC (Result: Stale )

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.
  • Previous version reverted to: varies; see below. Note that the first two reverts do not form part of the 3rr breach, but are given to show the whole pattern.
  • 2nd revert: 15:19, 15 April 2008 -- revert to 00:57, 15 April 2008 again (leaving aside the further edits made at the same time; mismatched paragraphs make revert, to lead, not readily seen)
  • Diff of 3RR warning: not needed; violator has had many past warnings and blocks

This is another instance of G2bambino edit-warring when edits of his are less than fully accepted by another editor or editors (in this case, by myself). Here, he has actually broken 3rr as a result (although some of the reverts contributing to the breach were not "edit-war reverts", but plain reverts of work by various editors).
The fact that there is an actual 3rr breach in this particular case is, I think, far less important that the offender's continual use of edit-warring to impose changes he wishes to make to an article, in the face of opposition. In February he was blocked for two weeks for such behavior. He complained his way into being unblocked on the condition that he keep to "1rr" for the duration of the two weeks, but he then broke that restriction and afterward mendaciously denied having done so.
See also, for the depth of this ongoing problem, the history of G2bambino as Gbambino and Gbambino06. (The account name was changed, leaving the block log and the older "Gbambino" talkpage obscure. G2bambino is the editor's separate, newer account.) G2bambino has been behaving in this way on Wikipedia for years, ever joining the project. The consequences to him for doing so, so far, seem not to have dissuaded him at all. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's very stale. Please could all parties involved use discussion to resolve differences please. ScarianCall me Pat! 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Stale is quite right; another pathetic example of Lonewolf resorting to a search back through months or even years of edits to find some similar previous version in order to vilify good-faith edits. This is completely disruptive behaviour and an abuse of the spirit of 3rr policy, which he's been called out on and reprimanded for before. --G2bambino (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In regard to G2bambino's remarks:
Firstly, this was a breach of 3rr even if only reverts of edits made this month are counted. (I've bolded them, above, to make this plainer to see.)
Secondly, so far as I am aware there is no need for reverts to be of recent edits in order to form part of a 3rr breach. If there is such a limitation, I would be grateful to be informed of it. Granted, when the version reverted to is from longer ago, there may be some doubt about whether a reverting edit was intentionally a revert -- some question of mens rea. However, deletions from an article are necessarily reverts, as G2bambino should know. Yet, after running up his reverts by edit-warring, he went ahead with a number of deletions, some of long-standing material, some of recent additions.
Thirdly, G2's claim that I have been "called out on and reprimanded" is an unmitigated lie. No one in authority (and, to the best of my recollection, no one other than G2) has ever faulted the contents of any of the 3rr-breach reports I have made on account of his continual edit-warring.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That my be how you wish to see it, but I think you know full well that 3rr exists to prevent edit warring, not editing; one need not go back through every single previous edit in order to see if the one they wish to make will undo one made back in 2005. I reverted your unfounded edits three times ([11][12][13]). Your other two "examples," however, are simply bogus as reverts in the context of 3rr. I think you full well know this, but will ignore it in order to smear me and get me blocked; an abuse of the process if ever there was one.
As for previous attempts to manipulate the system, I draw attention to the block imposed on LW in January of this year, and the blocking admin's further comment: "He reported another for 3RR, yet had basically done the same thing himself - he was trying to game the system. He violated the spirit of the policy." I believe that says it all. --G2bambino (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
In regard to G2's further remarks:
Yes, 3rr is meant to prevent edit-warring. In the case at hand, G2 was edit-warring, and that edit-warring resulted in his breaching 3rr. Not every one of the reverts totalling over three edit needs to be part of an edit-war, nor need they be the same revert.
Yes, I was blocked in January but, contrary to what G2 claimed, this had nothing to do with any supposed flaw in the 3rr report that occasioned it. G2 had broken 3rr. I reported it and the admin involved blocked me, too, even though I was within 3rr and G2 was not. The admin's move was unusual, from what I have observed, and I disagree with it and think he quite misunderstands the concept of "gaming the system". (Consistently running up to 3 reverts a day in a dispute is a form of "gaming the system; running up to three in a particular instance, and reporting another's 4th is not. People fairly often report another's 4th revert under those circumstances, and are not ordinarily blocked for their part.) However, I took my lumps and did not complain. But again, this had nothing to do with any supposed flaw in the contents of the 3rr report. On the contrary, the admin confirmed G2's 3rr breach, even while G2 vainly argued about it.
G2's underlying point, here, seems to be that, in his mind, his persistent 3rr breaches are not a problem for the WP project, but that my reporting of those persistent breaches somehow is a problem for the project. His outlook on that is a sadly and seriously wrong-headed, as scarcely needs saying.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're in La-La-Land; edit warring did not result in a 3rr breach; the edits you claim did take me over the limit were only coincidentally reverts of edits made weeks, months, and even years before! Unless you do expect one to search back through every edit made to an article, its obvious these +3 "reverts" were just good faith edits; you're just turning them into something else to achieve your desired end. The very fact that you had to search back to 2005 to find a version of the article I "reverted" to shows an almost pathological obsession with getting me busted; this behaviour, repeated time and time again, plus your aloof retention of any reasoning for reverting my edits, is what made me earlier question whether or not your actions constituted harassment. You clearly seem to believe you have a mandated right to police individuals according to your own personal variations of editing policies. The distanced arrogance might actually be amusing if it wasn't so disruptive to the project. --G2bambino (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding G2's yet further remarks:
Yes, edit-warring did cause the breach -- no edit-warring, no breach. I certainly was not trying to trick anybody, here. The reverts speak for themselves. I thought about adding a qualification that not all of them were part of the an actual edit-war, but decided against it because all one needs to do is look at the reverts to see this. I've covered all of this already. See my previous two comments. G2 needs to stop his persistent edit-warring and breaching of 3RR in his many disputes with many different editors. That's the bottom line, here. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
As usual, you believe your assumptions to be facts. You do now admit you listed reverts that had nothing to do with any edit war, but you fail to acknowledge how many. The answer is nine; take those away and your supposed 3rr breach obviously never happened! Why, then, would you scrape the bottom of the barrel to find them, and list them, if not only to try and collect enough reverts to get me blocked? Given these questionable actions, plus the fact that it is you who follows me around Wikipedia, it is you who always initially reverts my good faith edits (with only your pompous declaration of "irrelevant!" or "unimportant!" as explanation), and it is you who hides behind strange personal interpretations of editing policy, it's obvious who the antagonist is. That's the bottom line here. --G2bambino (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • At this point I have advised both editors that this board is not an appropriate venue for their discussion and that any further talk should continue elsewhere. Both have also been warned for disruption. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Folks, this is liable to go on endlessly, and G2 is liable to carry it further and further from what is relevant here, if I don't cease myself, so I'll end with this:
If anyone with real expertise knows of any genuine flaws in the 3RR report (other than its coming a couple days after the reverts concerned were made, if that is a flaw) please let me know on my talkpage. I made the report with scrupulous regard for the 3RR, as I understand that rule, just as I do with any 3RR report. If there is something I should do differently for the next time, I would dearly like to know that in advance of the next time. Thank you. And in the words of Han Solo, "Sorry about the mess."
I now give you G2, again, whom I suspect has not finished hurling abuse at me.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It will not go on endlessly; it will stop here. This is not a discussion board, and the complaint has been evaluated. 3RR blocks are not applied punitively but preventatively, and I am going to archive this discussion right now. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

::::::Perhaps it's best, the both of you depart the article-in-question & move on. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 21 April 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:Robinepowell reported by User:Collectonian (Result: Page protected)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 01:27, 21 April 2008 (accidentally left one edit early due to her first clearing the page completely)

Editor continues removing content from a featured list, under the claim it doesn't "belong" and that it is wrong. She has been asked not to remove this content by two different editors who have explained repeatedly on her talk page, my talk page, User:Matthewedwards's talk page, and on the list's talk page that the content she is removing is wholly appropriate and a necessary component of a high quality episode list. We've also asked her for evidence to back up her claims that the Canadian release dates are wrong, in all of the same places, but she is ignoring those requests and just keep removing the content.

Note: as all of her edits were to remove content from the article for no other reason that because she thinks the dates are wrong, and her first edit was to completely remove everythign but the lead, her edits have all been reverted as vandalism - removing content. Collectonian (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I also reported this user to WP:AIV but was redirected here. Robin has also changed the DVD release dates at the individual season articles of Degrassi: The Next Generation, despite references to Reliable Sources going against what she is putting. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 08:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Page protected. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:122.104.185.247 reported by User:Michellecrisp (Result: Both blocked)

  • Previous version reverted to: [14]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [19]

This is also spam. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've unblocked Michellecrisp as she was removing spam. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:77.78.198.147 reported by User:Frvernchanezzz (Result: 24 hours)


User has a dynamic IP, but has been blocked before about this, and has been warned multiple times (see Talk:Bosniaks and Talk:Slavic peoples). The user will not listen to reason, and only wants to push his POV and original research into these articles. The user also vandalized my user page. He was then warned by Daniel J. Leivick to stop, but immediately went on to vandalize Osli73's user page.

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kt66 reported by User:WisdomBuddha (Result: No violation)

  • Previous version reverted to: [20]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [25]

Of the 5 or more editors of this page, this user continually undoes dozens of changes at a time. It is almost impossible to edit this article without approval of this one person who is exteremly biased in this issue.

  • 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) 19:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Wageslave reported by User:HitotsuOne (Result: Both blocked )

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [30]

(First time report, apologies if something is incorrect)

User has ignored multiple requests from various users to stop adding needless criticism sections to multiple articles on unreleased products and has reverted his edits back on nearly each occasion. I over-reacted in my responses to him and apologize for such, but he's clearly been nothing but belligerent and biased in his actions.

  • Note 1: A similar issue has been happening on the wiki for Metal Gear Solid 4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and he has disregarded requests from users there as well. Apparently, these aren't the first occasions of his bringing this kind of mindset into his editing of articles, as he has been confronted about this on many occasions. [31]
You've included oldids instead of diffs (i.e., links that show the difference between the edited version of the page and the previous version). Please include diffs instead, thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I know, I was already in the process of fixing it when you posted. Thanks, though! :) HitotsuOne (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocked both editors 12 hours for violating 3RR. Wageslave undid his fifth revert, which gets him down to four reverts altogether. HitotsuOne reverted four times. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:HitotsuOne reported by User:wageslave (Result: Both blocked)

  • The first wholesale removal of the paragraph occured with this edit, but no user was logged-in, the change was made by an IP.
  • 0 revert: [32]
  • Made by a logged-in HitotsuOne:
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [37] quoted below:
  • "I would ask you to please stop removing the section regarding the beta. The material is relevant, notable and well cited. There is much discussion on the page there, if you follow the article's edits, you'll see that I am not solely responsible for that paragraph. It has been a very well discussed paragraph, and it should remain."
  • This has since been removed from his user talk article.
  • Note1; I realized I myself may be engaging in WP:EW so, after restoring the removed section a 6th time, I undid my own restoration and left the article in without the paragraph that Hitotsuone had removed. This is the diff of me backing out of a possible violation as discussed here
  • [38]
  • Note3; This is my first 3RR submission, I'd be willing to provide any help to clarify matters or correct this submission.
Both editors blocked 12 hours. See the 3RR report just above. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dual Freq reported by User:Redrocket (Result: Stale)

User warned, but refuses to stop and join in discussion to talk page. [40] Redrocket (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I'm reposting this, I originally posted it more than 24h ago, but for some reason it never drew an admins attention. Feel free to disregard if a decision has already been made. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Stale. - the purpose of blocking or protecting in response to an edit war is to stop the edit war, rather than to penalize or punish a user. As the edit war is no longer in progress, there is nothing to do here. I don't know what happened to your previous report, though. Stifle (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the purpose of this board and am requesting no action, but to be clear, the only reason the issue is "stale" is because another editor reverted the edits after placing one comment on the talk page. Flowanda | Talk 08:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mr. Loner reported by User:Mark t young (Result: 1 week )


  • 1st revert: [41] - reverted to [42]
  • 2nd revert: [43] - reverted to [44]
  • 3rd revert: [45] - reverted to [46]
  • 4th revert: [47] - revered to [48]
  • 5th revert: [49] - reverted to [50]
  • 6th revert: [51] - reverted to [52]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [53]
  • Everytime he removes: "Mesothelae is in fact a suborder of primitive spiders."
  • He continuously blanks his talk page, removing all previous warnings.
  • This is one of 5 pages that he has violated 3RR on the 22-April-2008. The others are mentioned in the list when I warned him that he had violated 3RR.
  • I myself have made more than 3 edits per 24 hour period, but he will not discuss on his or my own talk page what he is doing. I informed him that he should read the verifiability and no originial research guidlines on his talk page, but that too was blanked. Other editor have began reverting his edits also, but he will neither stop, nor discuss what he is doing.
Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Your report is not in proper form. Please show a diff for each revert, and indicate what previous version was being reverted to. See the reports above this one for examples. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Mr. Loner has made 500 edits in the last two weeks, mostly attempting to enforce his distinctive views of paleontology, views which appear to attract no support at all from other editors. He has revert-warred on a wide variety of articles. He blanks his Talk page to save having to discuss his edits with others; some complaints can be seen in the history. If he continues these activities after the block expires, I suggest that those concerned should bring up the matter at WP:ANI. Here is a typical exchange from the edit history of Megarachne: Other editor: rv...please stop reverting...Unless you can find a reliable source. Mr. Loner: No way, I always keep going and going and non stoping. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Anon18 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result:12 hours)

SPA edit warring in an effort to remove well-sourced quotes the user finds objectionable. On the rare occasions s/he does provide an edit summary, it is a different excuse each time, all merely a pretext to delete over the objections of other editors. Refuses to engage in substantial talk page discussion. A previous 3RR violation by this user got the article locked for a week.

Blocked for 12 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ronnieradke reported by Onorem♠Dil (Result:24 hours)

Ronnie radke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Ronnieradke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:20, 21 April 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 207186977 by Xsyner (talk)")
  2. 04:22, 22 April 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 207256738 by Onorem (talk)")
  3. 12:55, 22 April 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 207344419 by Onorem (talk)")
  4. 13:06, 22 April 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 207348782 by JohnCD (talk)")
  5. 13:06, 22 April 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  6. 13:09, 22 April 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 207349673 by XLinkBot (talk)")
  7. 17:34, 22 April 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 207390669 by FCYTravis (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

—Onorem♠Dil 17:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a pretty clear case of edit warring against several users (and even bots!), so 24-hour block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Robinepowell reported by User:Collectonian (Result: 48 Hours (repeat offender))

Robinepowell was reported yesterday for edit waring over this series' main episode lists. She wasn't blocked or given an admin warning, the page was just protect. So she has now moved on the edit warring over the season pages. She has violated 3RR on this list, is close to it on Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7), and is slow edit warring over Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 3) and Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 2). Hopefully stronger measures will be taken this time. Collectonian (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Robinepowell blocked for 48 hours. - Philippe 23:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jok2000 reported by User:SomeUsr (Result:Warnings)


user perstistently deletes valid edits with valid references and citations, uses a "blog" as his/her "source" to "prove" that it is "nonsense"...see ufo talk. May also violate WP:NPOV and WP:SPS

SomeUsr (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. 1 is a researched edit. It is followed by 3 reverts of a WP:SPA. Jok2000 (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Both of you knock it off. You're both edit warring. If either its inclusion or exclusion is really that important, you'll be able to achieve consensus for it. If either of you keeps reverting, I'll have to block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ave Caesar reported by User:Ocean8765 (Result: No violation / forum shopping)

I was editing the talk section (not the main article) of the above article. I added a recent news story on efforts by an Israeli public relations firm to manipulate wikipedia. See summary of the story in this blog, [ http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/04/if-you-dont-wan.html]. I added this to see if we could agree to add it to the main article, as evidence of Israel's public relations machine. Apartheid isn't accomplished solely through force, but also persuasion, and I wanted to see if we could discuss both in the article.

Without having a discussion, Ave Caesar reverted my edit three times. Each time I asked him to discuss it. Mind you this was only an edit to the talk page, and not the main article, but he kept deleting it. He even deleted my request to talk from his own talk page.

1st revision - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAllegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=207448083&oldid=207447657
2nd revision - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=next&oldid=207448900
3rd revision - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid&diff=next&oldid=207449796
My first request to discuss it with him - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAve_Caesar&diff=207449290&oldid=205149703
His deletion of my request from his takl page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ave_Caesar&diff=next&oldid=207449290
My second request to discuss it with him - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ave_Caesar&diff=next&oldid=207449471
His deletion of that request from his talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ave_Caesar&diff=next&oldid=207450042
My third request to discuss it with him, and to warn him about 3RR. - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ave_Caesar&diff=next&oldid=207450330
His deletion of that request from his talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ave_Caesar&diff=next&oldid=207450563

--Ocean8765 (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note that that's only 3 revisions for each talk page. You need four to violate WP:3RR. Also, 3RR generally applies to article space only rather than talk space. Moreover, obvious violations of WP:TALK are reverted on sight. You were appropriately warned each time. On top of all of these things, your addition of the blog article is nothing but disruptive and completely off-topic from the article content. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that's true. I think you only need to make three reverts to violate 3RR. Regardless, it's pretty clear that you would have made a fourth revert had I changed it back. You made the first three in about four minutes, and refused to discuss the matter, even deleting my requests to discuss from your talk page. Rather than engage in an edit war, I felt it was more appropriate to seek the help of a responsible admin.--Ocean8765 (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No you need to do four reverts to to break 3R "An editor must not perform more than three reverts," from WP:3R, and we can't go on what people might have done, only what they are going to do.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright I'll change it back again.--Ocean8765 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
"Another" user just reverted it. Can someone help me here? I only want to see if we can add a public relations section to the Israeli apartheid article. I'm not editing the main article, just the talk page. --Ocean8765 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No violation - Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for things unrelated to the development of an article. --B (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:ThomHImself reported by User:Baegis (Result: Page fully protected)

Though the 3rr warning was from a few days ago, the editor in question is clearly aware of the 3rr for this particular article. Has also claimed that Wikipedia is defaming the person in the entry. Has caused quite a disruption. Baegis (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am so not going to get involved in a block over this one. No one's covering themselves in glory - people are reading legal threats where none existed (for the record, he said "as specified in Wikipedia policy", which includes WP:NLT), and folks are engaging in a ridiculously aggressive editing style. I've protected the page for five days. I'm willing to unprotect it if we can all start playing nicely in the sandbox together. Otherwise, no. - Philippe 23:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Amoruso reported by User:RolandR (Result: Nobody blocked, both users warned)


I'm afraid not. I self reverted to avoid RV fight [54] [55] so no 3RR. But User:RolandR didn't. Sadly, he continued to blank my comments from a TALK PAGE using pop-up tools. [56]. He also removes comments from discussion pages of his user page.[57] I tried to engage him in discussions but he used popups to revert and blank materials instead. He doesn't use talk pages/edit summaries etc. It seems he should be punished for RV fighting and then falsely reporting a non 3RR. Amoruso (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
NB "Self-revert" was made AFTER this 3RR report was posted. RolandR (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It was made practically the same time. Anyway, 3RR doesn't apply to blanking comments from talk pages, after rv fighting yourself. You should know better. Amoruso (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No block - This is silly - just cool it please. Consider this a warning to find something more constructive to do than revert war on a talk page. --B (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:RolandR reported by User:Amoruso (Result: No violation)


Amoruso (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. You've been around long enough to know that reverts to your own user page or user talk page are exceptions, as are reverts to remove vandalism. If you have forgotten, I suggest you read WP:3RR#Exceptions. And keep your unwanted comments off my talk page. RolandR (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think not. Your behaviour warrants a penalty. Note that falsely accusing someone of vandalism is a violation of wikipedia rules too. You've been doing that too much. Please read carefully and thoroughly Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility or we'll take further action. Amoruso (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No violation - with rare exception, users may remove messages/warnings/whatever from their talk page. Such removal is taken as confirmation that they have read the message. --B (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Light Defender reported by IP Editor 87.XXX (Result: Page protected)


This is only one example, the editor is trying to systematically remove any evidence that a musical is not endorsed by the band take that - he is removing material sourced to the times (a reliable source) from multiple articles. (I am a dynamic ip which is why I'm listed as 87.xxx.xxx 87.114.150.200 (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

PhilKnight has protected the article (expires 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)). Netsnipe has also protected article Gary Barlow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), (expires 11:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC))). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ultramarine reported by User:Giovanni33 (Result: Not a 3RR issue)

  • Previous version reverted to: [58]


[Guatemalan Civil War]

See talk page for edit warring against consensus: [59]

[Church Committee]

See talk page for edit warring against consensus:[60]

[1954 Guatemalan coup d'état]

See talk page for edit warring against consensus:[62][63]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: This is an experienced user who regularly issues 3RR warnings to those who he is edit warring with. He has received already 5 separate 3RR violation blocks in the past. He knows better but has never stopped edit warring, instead games the system.
  • Comment:This is not a technical violation of 3RR but clearly gaming the system to edit war. He is guilty of edit warring across many articles for example also see: [64] He will revert 3 times and then wait, and start over. This has been going on for months. Editor has not convinced any of the many editors on the talk page about the validity of these insertions. See: [65] He ignores consensus and continues to edit war until editors get tired and leave. Also violates WP:TE and WP:OWN. Since he doesn't stop after being asked to by many editors, asking for a Rfc, etc, a block for chronic edit warring across many articles over this material is in order.
  • About the material: The Ferguson quote from Telegraph- it is not actually from an historical examination of Guatemalan history. It is from an op-ed piece specifically directed at the Nobel prize acceptance speech of Harold Pinter, that has been shown to be false. User thinks this little quip from Ferguson is so important that it should go into several articles where there is neither evidence of commentary by Pinter nor evidence of any source making the claim that the U.S. is culpable of all 200,000 deaths. He has inserted the same quote in this civil war article, in Foreign Policy of the United States, in 1954 Guatemalan Coup D'etat, had formerly inserted it into Allegations of States Terrorism Committed by the United States, and Church Committee and elsewhere. The Polity Data information is inserted in pretty much the same places too despite it being problematic and of tenuous relevance.
Giovanni, for Guatemalan Civil War your latter three reverts are from over a week ago. For Church Committee, your last four reverts are from nearly twenty days ago. Also many of your links do not show the removal or addition of the same disputed content, instead there are many different edits. As there was no three-revert-rule violation by Ultramarine, this would be a matter for the Administrator's Noticeboard, not here. If there was disruption by Ultra it would be better dealt with there, although this sounds perilously close to asking for administrator intervention in a content dispute. Dance With The Devil (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
As a note, under WP:3RR, it doesn't have to be the same content, and it can be enforced under the spirit of the rule rather than the letter⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as I wanted to make clear the user reverts up to three times, then often waits a week--after arguing in circles on talk--and then even if he has not convinced anyone--goes back to edit warring. As I said, its been on going for months. See the US terrorism article: same material, same edit war, same issue. Its the same pattern. Not respecting consensus, and gaming the system (in a smarter way than just waiting to one hour after 24 hours). The violation is still the same. Its chronic edit warring by reverting beyond standards of reasonableness, and I believe this fits in with WP:TE, and WP:OWN. I am concerned that this has continued too long and is causing disruption to improvement of many articles. I just want an admin to act here to stop it. Ultra is doing this because he thinks he can get away with it. If he is rebuked I think he will stop.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It's never really been established where to report edit warring that doesn't fall under 3RR, though I am personally of the opinion it should be done here. Thus, I don't consider Giovanni's posting this here unreasonable in and of itself (saying nothing about the validity of the report). Not going to process this report myself because I'm concerned about possible bias on my part. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not a 3RR issue - 3RR isn't a license to game the system or to edit war up to three times daily. But this noticeboard is for resolving 3RR complaints, not addressing all issues of edit warring. There are other aspects of the dispute resolution process better suited to handle this - mediation, a request for comment, or a third opinion may be helpful, but this is beyond the scope of the 3RR rule. --B (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That would be appropriate for resolving content disputes, but I brought there here specifically due to gaming the system and edit warring. Even though a technical violation of 3RR did not occur, its a clear pattern of edit warring and gaming the system the violates the spirit of the 3RRrule. Thus it is a problem for this board. We had all five different editors comment and disagree with this user (and none agree with him)-- and that had no effect on his intransigence--will a "third" opinion change anything? He pledged and will continue to edit war no matter what anyone thinks since he disregards consensus. The only thing that will make a difference is that if someone credibly informs him that repeated edit warring and gaming of the system will result in increasingly longer blocks. That is what is needed in this case. I also note that the user did go though ArbCom for "sterile edit warring" and part of their ruling stated that if he were to "persist in sterile revert warring, admins may block them for a short period (up to a week) for each revert." I'm not sure that arbom ruling applies today, but I think it should as this is exactly very sterile edit warring.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you link to the arbcom case? If it is still in effect, WP:AE is the place to go for arbitration enforcement, but I'll at least take a look at it. --B (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding my prior arbcom case, see [66]. Only applied to Democratic peace theory. Those involved also thereafter solved this and produced a version all agreed on. I have not been blocked for anything for more than 2 years. On the other hand, please note that Giovanni33 is on a 1R per week for edit warring. Check out his block log. Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)Ultramarine (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what my block has has to do with your edit warring Ultra. Its a red-herring and ad-hominen. What is relevant is that despite this notice you have continued your sterile edit war:08:52, 23 April 2008 Perhaps your response will be to list the block logs of all the other editors with whom you keep reverting? I note its several editors (basically everyone who doesn't agree with you, while you have not been able to convince a single other editor---yet you keep reverting?). Do you see a problem with this behavior? Doing 3 reverts, waiting a week, followed by another three reverts, and so on...is sterile edit warring and tendentious editing. Perhaps arbcom enforcement needs to weigh in on this question (although I think given the violation of the spirit of 3RR, its actionable here, too).Giovanni33 (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The proposed findings of fact only talks about the democratic peace article: [67] Nothing else. It is you have been repeatedly edit warring and violating your arbcom ruling as can be seen in your block log. You recently came very close to being permanently banned for suspected use of sockpuppets.Giovanni33 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser). I have not. Recently Giovanni33 has started wikistalking me and reverting my edits in several articles he has never edited before. Regarding the other editors reverting me on the page Giovanni33 now cites BernardL also has never edited the article before but has a long history of editing similarly with Giovanni33 on other pages. DrGabriela is another editor with a very short edit history who have recently also started wikistalking me. The only long time editor is Cronos1. He disagreed with me regarding if material should be deleted but complimented me here for adding opposing views: [68] Regardless, to resolve this I will now only add disputed tags and invite Giovanni33 and others interested to mediation.Ultramarine (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.121.221.174 and User:65.170.159.12 reported by User:Idag (Result: No violation)



Note: These two IPs are sockpuppets of the same user. Idag (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, please, please do a sock-puppet check so you can tell that I'm not the same person as 65.170.159.12 or that banned Edward guy. Idag is so desperate to "win" that he's mixing different people's edits together to add them up past the 3RR limit. I checked on 65.170.159.12's talk page and saw that he or she was warned not to violate 3RR and stopped short. Likewise, I'm not violating 3RR. Idag is gaming the system. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
What a coincidence that 65's anonymous IP switched right as he hit his fourth edit and the new IP is making the same exact edits as 65. The edits being made are disruptive and are going against the consensus for the article (every other editor of the Ayn Rand article has had to revert these edits at least once by now). Idag (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No violation. - the previous version reverted to is a verstion after the reverts taken place, so it is not clear that #1 is a revert. Then there are three reverts by one IP and two by another. No rules broken here and there is no evidence to connect the two IPs. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.36.92.161 reported by User:LtPowers (Result: 24 hours)

[edit] User:Mr. Voice reported by User:HiDrNick (Result: indef sock block)

Continued edit waring after 3RR warning. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 20:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:One last pharaoh reported by User:GHcool (Result: Both blocked 12 hours)

The editor kept edit warring after a 3RR warning. He refused to use the talk page. --GHcool (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Both editors blocked – for a period of 12 hours. During the 24-hour period starting 23:53 UTC on 22 April, I count four reverts by each editor. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jacurek reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 48 hours)


  • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.. Already blocked before I saw this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pia L reported by User:TheSeven (Result:12H )


I believe that Pia L's reverts fall under justifiable reverts, see Talk:Christopher Gillberg where she discusses what may be the addition of libel by TheSeven who also appears to have tried to provoke Pia L into reverting four times.--Berig (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Pia L claims libel as justification for reverting, but each allegedly-libelous edit is obviously not libelous.
As an example, Pia L claimed that including the article in the category "Scientific Misconduct" was libelous. First, this seems untenable on any grounds. Second, Gillberg was formally accused of scientific fraud; there have been three article about this in the British Medical Journal as well as a one-hour documentary on the main Swedish TV network, and tens of article in the Swedish press. Gillberg was acquitted of fraud, but some people believe him to be guilty. Gillberg was criminally convicted for refusing to turn over evidence. Obviously someone interested in the subject of scientific misconduct might want to know about Gillberg. I pointed this, and more, on the Talk page. Pia L continued reverting.
Also, the claim that I was trying to "provoke" Pia L is silly. Indeed, the first time that she violated 3RR, I just warned her. This is her second time. I certainly dislike her large wholesale reverts with obviously-bogus justification though. The above example with the category is indicative.
If Pia L is going to claim one of the exemptions for 3RR, then she ought to be able to explicitly give an example of an edit that validly qualifies. She has failed to do so.
TheSeven (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Two examples that validly qualify were given here [[69]]: Your edits were reverted because they introduced false statements into a WP:BLP. I also disagree with the statement that scientists who are aquitted of scientific misconduct should be labeled "allegedly guilty" because "some people" still believe it to be so. Pia (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Those examples were obviously bogus, as I replied [70]. So Pia L first gives the example with the category (summarized above). This fails. Then he gives two more examples, which also fail. Having several failed examples does not make one valid example. This is a Pia L tactic: keep talking, coming up with new excuses when the prior ones do not work.
Also, Pia L uses the phrase "allegedly guilty", in quotes above, as though quoting someone: I cannot find that phrase in either the article or anything I said. TheSeven (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Your statement about turning over "evidence" is misleading. Please present reliable sources for you claim. There was no "independent investigation" or any kind of "scientific investigation" for that matter that would require evidence to be presented. As a matter of fact, the persons who were granted access under the Public Access law were acting as a private individuals, with no approved research proposal and no task approved by or prompted by the Science Council or the Ethics Council whatsoever. This amounts to something close to "access for hobby purposes". It's true that Gillberg himself called upon the University Principal to request external reviewers at an earlier stage, when the 8 month long investigation was going on, but the university chose to oppose the request at that point, because they preferred to instead wait for the outcome of the Ethical Council's review. And we know that result: allegations dismissed. Pia (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that Pia L continues to revert: 19:45, 22 April 2008. TheSeven (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC) This revert also included the category-revert that I described above.

I hope that WP administrators will see what happened above. I accuse Pia L of violating 3RR. Pia L claims to justify his reverts on the ground that the edits were libelous. I argue that the edits were Not libelous, and I ask Pia L for an example of an edit that is libelous. Pia L keeps talking.
But there is still no example.
TheSeven (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Pia L blocked for 12 hours. - Philippe 23:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I was blocked for violating 3RR while removing non-factual and damaging statements in a biography of a living person? The false statement: "The controversy concerns alleged scientific misconduct and the willful destruction of research data on the part of Professor Gillberg in order to avoid outside scientific scrutiny". User:TheSeven finally admitted that the statement is indeed false [71] and writes: "Your point 1, above, was valid; I corrected the article" [72]. Please note that this was only after reverting my removal of the false information 3 times. I have repeatedly explained my actions: WP:BLP policy states that removal of false statements are justified, but I was blocked while this case was still pending over at BLP noticeboard. The issue is not new: it has previously been to arbitration (August of 2006) [73], and since that time, the article has remained stable - up until 15 April 2008, when the same non-factual sentence was reinsterted again by anonymous users, using a blog as a source [74]. The problem is still partially there in the article, and it introduces a troubling POV-slant for a BLP article, which I have explained on the talk page[75] repeatedly, and also above. Please note that my forth edit [76] "replaced questionable sources with original sources, removed misconduct tag", and was not a revert to the version of March 12 by User:WhatamIdoing. It was done to introduce a NPOV source (British Medical Jornal), to replace the docudrama in the lead, which is unsuitable as it consists of interviews with the three adversaries of Gillberg's and therefore cannot be anything but pure speculations as to the motivation of the persons who shredded the documents. This was also explained on the talk page.[77]. Pia (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Pia's claim about a "questionable source", the source is a one-hour documentary (apparently similar to "60 minutes" in the USA) on Sweden's leading (and public) TV network, SVT. So again, Pia's justification fails. Worse, Pia used this excuse to continue reverting after I filed notice of 3RR violation.
Regarding Pia's fifth revert (not fourth, as he claims above), this too did not remove anything that could be libelous, as required for 3RR exemption.
TheSeven (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:John celona reported by User:Enigmaman (Result: No violation)


Continued edit-warring on several articles, including this one, even after warning. User ignores warnings and expects others to follow the 3RR rule, but does not feel it applies to him. The issue at hand is that the user in question wants to add numerous articles to the Category:American criminals. He has edit-warred on at least four articles that I count, all with the same attempt to add articles to that category. Enigma message Review 01:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples: Billy Preston, Eugene Hasenfus, Bob Taft, Billy Cannon. This editor's contribution log is rife with this behavior. David in DC (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: I myself have not seen a strict 3RR violation from this editor; however, I have warned him about gaming 3RR and that his overall pattern of editing may be considered disruptive. Having expressed some opinions myself on how this debacle should proceed I am unwilling to block him myself, but if another Admin were to take a different view of his behaviour, I wouldn't wheel-war. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And that's not all of it. I checked the user's contributions further, and I found numerous other articles. I can't seem to find constructive contributions. I've never seen an account as devoted to edit-warring as this one. Note: Was blocked for 24 hours in May 2007. Enigma message Review 01:35, 24 April 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. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please look at [78]. Enigma message Review 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll review his contributions, but he didn't violate 3rr here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC) It seems you have both been doing it, and you appear to be block shopping rather than hanging in there with the RfC/ WP:Dispute resolution. Additionally, you need to stop using rollback to revert him, otherwise someone may take the privilege away. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No. I was not involved in the situation at all until I warned both sides for edit-warring on an article. To be quite blunt, you are absolutely wrong. In fact, I have not edit-warred at all. I simply reverted his latest edits for blatant edit-warring. Enigma message Review 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Deacon is absolutely RIGHT. You are stepping into a dispute where one editor is repeatedly deleting 2 year old information on an article while an RFC is in progress, without waiting for consensus. John celona (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That is absolutely irrelevant. You are edit warring, whether you claim to be restoring rightful long-standing information or not. See WP:edit war. Additionally, you are edit warring with numerous editors, not just one. Enigma message 14:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Amirkayani reported by User:Fullstop (Result: 12 hours)

Five tendentious reverts in the last 24 hours. Has made no comments to relevant talk section.

  • 16:01, 24 April 2008 Amirkayani (Talk | contribs) (23,044 bytes) (Undid revision 207862041 by Raven in Orbit (talk))
  • 14:08, 24 April 2008 Amirkayani (Talk | contribs) (23,043 bytes) (Undid revision 207823492 by Raven in Orbit (talk))
  • 10:01, 24 April 2008 Amirkayani (Talk | contribs) (23,043 bytes) (Undid revision 207800453 by Fullstop (talk))
  • 06:59, 24 April 2008 Amirkayani (Talk | contribs) (23,043 bytes) (→Gakhar clans)
  • 19:35, 23 April 2008 Amirkayani (Talk | contribs) (23,042 bytes) (→Gakhar clans)

... ad nauseum. Diff between 16:26, 22 April 2008 and 16:01, 24 April 2008

Editor's edits are exclusively the addition/re-addition of this and other directories. See also similar edits at Kayanis (Tribe).

[edit] User:Navnløs reported by User:Anger22 (Result: 48 hours)

Comment These are the four most recent reverts on this article. Since April the 21st User:Navnløs has revert 6 different editors a total of 7 times, all doing the same edit. Navnløs has also been repeating the same pattern of reverts across other articles including Cynic (band), Cannibal Corpse, Amon Armath, Opeth and many others. In some cases his reverts have been accompanied by a vandalism warning against the editors with differeing opinions for edits that clearly weren't vandalism at all. All the edits stem from the editor's dismissal of a discussion/consensus over a simple formatting issue. Navnløs was issued a 3RR warning on April 21. And todays recent revert happened after receiving yet another 3RR warning concerning 2 different articles. Navnløs' block log shows 4 previous blocks all for the same pattern of editing. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  • 48 hours, stern warning. This is his 5th 3RR block in 6 months. --B (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:HooperBandP reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Protected 2 weeks)

  • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime not given; there is no one version reverted to; but there are 4 clear reverts


  • 1st revert: 2008-04-24T16:11:59 marked as revert Previous version reverted to: 2008-04-24T14:42. Removing "dubious" tag.
  • 2nd revert: 2008-04-24T18:25:07 paired diff; undoes previous editors addition Previous version reverted to: 2008-04-24T17:19. Removing "synthesis" and "weasel" tags.
  • 3rd revert: 2008-04-24T20:21:21 marked as revert Previous version reverted to same as for 2nd revert. Restores a sentence including "rejected the use of weapons" and "{{failed verification}}".
  • 4th revert: 2008-04-24T22:21:56 paired diff; rather oddly marked "not a revert", though it clearly is Previous version reverted to: 2008-04-24T21:30; restores a large amount of deleted text
  • Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-04-24T20:25:16 which the user removed [79]. I then re-warned them, not realised that the prev warning had been removed.
I've added information (in italics) to this report and struck out the previous version reverted to, which is a broken link. Coppertwig (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Article protected 2 weeks - there is plenty of edit warring all around. It looks like it was previously protected for a dispute but the issue was obviously never resolved. Protecting in lieu of blocking all involved. (Reminder: 3RR isn't a license to revert exactly 3 times.) --B (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply - No three of my edits were on the same issue, and the editor in question iniated a edit war on the same page. All my edits were highly discussed on the talk page. I'm confident in my actions and I also agree in the protect. Hooper (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Additional Comment: It was User John Smith who warned on the first issue, though for bad faith reasons. Never did I receive a warning from a User Coppertwig. Do we have a sock puppet? Hooper (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:217.87.83.146 reported by User:Fnagaton (Result: 31 hours)

  • 5th and 6th reverts are after the 3RR warning. This ISP has a history of IP users repeatedly being disruptive on this same topic of binary prefixes. This ISP has also been linked to the banned users User:Sarenne and User:NotSarenne, the longer history of abuse is detailed at User:Fnagaton/SarenneSockPuppetReport. This user is likely to switch to another IP address in the same ISP so a temporary range block of the ISP may be needed. Fnagaton 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked 31 hours. If he hits it again from a different IP, let me know and I'll just s-protect it. --B (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your time and help. I will have to get some sleep soon but I will keep an eye on the situation and post a message on your talk page if someone editing from a similar IP starts editing in violation of the block. Fnagaton 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:ThomHImself reported by User:Baegis (Result: 24 hours)

This editor has caused wanton disruption over a variety of articles. This is his 2nd 3rr report in 3 days. He is falsely doing this under BLP guidelines, even though he brought the issue up on the BLP Noticeboard and several editors told him that his claims were invalid. He also has a classic COI because he has worked extensively with the person in question. Can someone please do something? Baegis (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source in the article where Robert J. Marks II invokes the No free lunch in search and optimization theorem? If so, it's a 3RR violation. If not, this it is removal of "unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons". --B (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
With all the massive deletions by the above named editor, I can't tell for sure. However it is clear that Marks is an ID proponent as the working paper I listed is using the idea of No Free lunch and applying it to intelligent design, especially considering that the lab in question has strong ties to the ID movement. Baegis (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that he has been edit warring to remove trace of this individual's association with ID, but in this one case, he is correct. If Marks has not used that theorem to defend ID, then saying that he has is wrong. Some IDers use the theorem. Marks is an IDer. But those two facts alone don't mean that Marks has used the theorem or even heard of it. --B (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The paper I listed is coauthored by Marks and it uses the NFL theorem. It is also used to further the idea of intelligent design, by at least one of the authors for sure. Baegis (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see - I misunderstood you. Blocked 24 hours. --B (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:75.47.222.230 reported by User:NE2 (Result: 1 month )

This is a slightly complicated case; it consists of 75.47.x.x (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x) continually restoring official names of freeways that are not commonly used and do not appear on signs. As can be seen in the RFC, multiple users have tried to communicate and he will not respond. This specific case deals with two names: Barstow Freeway for I-215 and I-15 and Needles Freeway for I-40.


  • 1st revert: 20:27 (Needles)
  • 2nd revert: 21:14 (Needles)
  • 3rd revert: 21:38 (Barstow)
  • 4th revert: 22:02 (Barstow)
  • Diff of 3RR warning: he warned me at 21:40; I then told him that he'd also reverted thrice at 21:42.

Comment: That's not a revert NE2 so what the heck it is all about? --75.47.222.230 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Every addition of a freeway name was a revert to an earlier version that included the name. --NE2 02:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:3RR, it is. --SmashvilleBONK! 02:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Then what the hell does that mean? --75.47.222.230 (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That you pretty clearly violated 3RR. --SmashvilleBONK! 02:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You sound like a NE2 supporter. NE2 has not even followed consensus since Rschen7754 said it. --75.47.222.230 (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
NE2 also removed my edits the east and west directions i added such as SR 58, I-40 and SR 127.--75.47.222.230 (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The most recent edits by him in any of those articles were at least over a month ago. --SmashvilleBONK! 02:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't even know who NE2 is other than the guy who posted this. The only reason I even found it was a reverted a speedy deletion tag you made yesterday where you also blanked the article, so your talk page was on my watchlist. What I'm doing is supporting the facts, which are laid out above. --SmashvilleBONK! 02:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
NE2 keeps following me around every time i edit articles he keeps reverting my edits all the time which is considered wikistalking.--75.47.222.230 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure? It looks like he's a pretty big part of that Wikiproject. These look like they would be articles on his watchlist. --SmashvilleBONK! 02:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
NE2 needs to stop reverting all my edits since he is doing it on U.S. Route 95 in California, Interstate 15 in California, Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California) and other articles. PhATxPnOY916 knows what i'm saying that NE2 has failed to follow consensus and NE2 keeps reverting his edits too which he is being asked by PhATxPnOY916 to stop asumming ownership of articles.--75.47.222.230 (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This is irrelevant and not the proper forum. You have yet to give a legitimate reason for violating 3RR other than "he reverted my edits". --SmashvilleBONK! 03:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I would endorse a long term block as this user has had blocks in the past - [80]. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've reset it for one month based upon the RfC and the long-list of blocks elsewhere. But this IP will most likely jump elsewhere soon... seicer | talk | contribs 03:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Brian A Schmidt reported by User:FellGleaming (Result: Warned )


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [85]

My apologies if I performed the diffs improperly, as this is my first such report. However, the reverts are so close together they should be immediately apparent from the edit log. There was in fact a fifth revert done by this user, all within the space of a few minutes.

Note – The last revert was at 02:51 and the 3RR warning was issued at 02:53, and there have been no further reverts since. While there is a vio. on the case of Brian A Schmidt, I am not blocking in the interest that both of you will take your pointless edit warring to the talk page, where it belongs. seicer | talk | contribs 06:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Colourinthemeaning reported by User:Amoruso (Result: Warning)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [86]

To which he responded by saying he can break all rules because he disagrees: [87]

He also violated 3RR on 3 other articles: Gilo, Neve Yaakov, Ramot at the same time. Amoruso (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Warned. It's customary to report people only when they have reverted after receiving a warning. I am giving him a warning to remind him not to take WP:IAR too literally. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ed Fitzgerald reported by User:Childnicotine (Result: No violation)

  • Previous version reverted to: [88]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: Reported user has edited since 2005 and certainly knows of the rule

Comment :43 and :44 were made in quick succession and form the same revert (they were each removing different parts of Childnicotine's previous edit). Leithp 09:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No violation. Per WP:3RR: "Consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule." Therefore #2 and #3 are the same revert, there are only three reverts and no violation. Please also use the full article title when listing here in future rather than a redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ewenss reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: Declined)


He removed the first with an edit summary: "LOL".

Ewenss has shown unwillingness to thoroughly discuss his edits, and thinks it's easier to push his weight through edit warring. He argued with me on his talk page that he doesn't need to be held to the standards because he is an "expert" on the subject. Grsztalk 17:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No violation. "2nd revert" is actually restoring of tag placed by user:Grsz themselves, so I don't think it counts into "edit warring" and definitely does not overweigh the edit warring of the two. Both are equally guilty here. `'Míkka>t 18:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sumerophile reported by User:Mikkalai (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

  1. (cur) (last) 18:16, April 25, 2008 Sumerophile (Talk | contribs | block) (3,173 bytes) (Undid revision 208067415 by 4.233.116.148 (talk)) (undo)
  2. (cur) (last) 20:11, April 25, 2008 Sumerophile (Talk | contribs | block) (3,173 bytes) (Undid revision 208129861 by Mikkalai (talk) replace template clutter with appropriate portals, cats, etc.) (undo)
  3. (cur) (last) 20:46, April 25, 2008 Sumerophile (Talk | contribs | block) (3,263 bytes) (Undid revision 208137702 by 4.232.15.139 (talk) IP vandalism
  4. (cur) (last) 20:55, April 25, 2008 Sumerophile (Talk | contribs | block) (3,263 bytes) (Undid revision 208141410 by 206.148.196.18 (talk) revolving IP vandalism
  5. (cur) (last) 22:24, April 25, 2008 Sumerophile (Talk | contribs | block) (3,263 bytes) (Undid revision 208153420 by 76.237.11.134 (talk) template taking up page)
  6. Some other edits here during this time are essentially reverts as well.

Please note that the edit summaries are wrong: it is not IP vandalism. It is content dispute.

This user also wages revert wars in other pages: Hayasa-Azzi and Urartu, objecting Armenian editors who want to include them into (pre)history of Armenia.

The user continues revert wars and ignores the suggestion to resolve the content dispute in talk pages. `'Míkka>t 17:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. User has two previous valid blocks for 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Postscript: After the above block, there were 13 IP edits adding and subtracting templates from the Nairi page, reverting one another. I semi-protected the page for one week, hoping to encourage Talk discussion as to the correct templates to use. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Carl.bunderson reported by User:Tajik007 (Result: Tajik007 blocked as a sock of a banned user)

This user is defying years of concensus and also scholarly sources which were provided on the talk page of the article. Also the user was advised to look at the Iran article's info-box and see for himself that it's the same language (since the user has no knowledge of this language). An admin noticed his senseless reverting and warned him about 3RR and right after that he made his 4th RV (3RR warning diff).

Please note the following: I was recently blocked, then vindicated by the same admin, for 3rr on the talk page. I am defending the page from a sockpuppet, so I am not in violation of the 3rr. For a testimony by and admin of my good faith in face of 3rr cases on this page, see here. Tajik is taking the same position as SwatiAfridi took, and the similar change by Swati was reverted by admin Ryulong; Tajik is also a one-issue editor, and this page has frequently been the victim of sock-editing. Another detail arguing in favour of his being a sock is the fact that he delete's sinebot's addition of his sig and time to his talk edits--this has been a trope of Afghanistan-related socks. Consensus has been in my favour for a long time. This user is in violation of making contentious changes to a page without waiting for consensus to conform to his ideas. Both sides seem to have reasons for holding their positions. He also fails to mention that the user that warned me warned him as well, asnd that that user is not an admin as he (Tajik) maintains. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This user has nothing to support his edit so he just throws around accusations, I could just as easily accuse him of being a sockpuppet and revert his edits for that reason, but I am reverting as per scholarly sources and years of consensus. He has a record of edit warring just to have things his own way. The consensus has been for years on not only this article but others that this language is Persian. Carl.bunderson is making things up about the consensus being on his side, this can easily be seen by going back to versions a year ago. Also, scholarly sources were provided on the talk page that this language is indeed Persian, but he ignores them. In addition, he was pointed out to Iran's article where the info-box says "Jomhūrī-ye Eslāmī-ye Īrān", which is the same as "Jamhūrī-ye Islāmī-ye Afġānistān". Even though he has no knowledge of this language, he ignores the scholarly sources and obvious. Tajik007 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that he is not an admin, don't change the subject, what matters is that he warned about 3RR and you have been warned about it many times as seen by your block log. Tajik007 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments The user reporting the 3RR violation has also violated the 3RR rule on the same article and both users were warned by me. --SMS Talk 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks pretty obvious. If Tajik007 isn't a sock, he sure picked a bad name. --B (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
What does it mean that I'm "not blocked pending checkuser", B? Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
In other words, I'm agreeing with you that Tajik007 is a sock of a banned user (exception to 3RR) and checkuser will confirm that. --B (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I thought you meant the checkuser was on me, that was my confusion. Anyhow, thanks and have a good day. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:UnknownForEver reported by User:AI009 (Result: No blocks for now)

  • Previous version reverted to: [89]

The user had concerns about sources and I added them. Yet he reverted. At first, I urged him to discuss, he complied but continues to add back unreferenced, biased material. Very unproductive behavior. Since I'm a newbie, I need help in this regard. I didn't add any biased material, yet the concerned user shows complete disregard. --AI009 (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [94]
No blocks for now - It looks to be resolved now? The alternative is would be to block both of you since you both violated 3RR. (If the revert warring resumes, I will block both.) --B (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ada Kataki reported by User:Frédérick Duhautpas (Result: Page protected)

  • Previous version reverted to: [95]

This user is deleting sourced material concerning an alternative name given to the genre in some other countries like France. He rejects this arguement and goes into edit waring because in some other countries this name is not used and he's arguing we're not in France...but his view is a local bias (his local perspective) and this bias goes against wikipedia's policy.


I'm leaving the above as-is and presenting a modified version below:

article Ethereal Wave (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (note captialization in article title); reverts by Ada Kataki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 04:25, 2 March 2008 for first revert, not identical; and 15:24, 25 April 2008 (reverted to exactly by reverts 2 to 5).

Each revert by Ada Kataki deletes or Heavenly Voices and a reference by Alyz Tale, Stephane Leguay and Mario Glenade.

Reverts by Frédérick Duhautpas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: 09:49, 18 April 2008

Each revert restores the material mentioned above. Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Landon1980 reported by User:Fair Deal (Result: Article protected)

Comment This edit war broke out yesterday with User:Navnløs exceeding 3RR across several articles. Navnløs received a 48 hour block. Today User:Landon1980, a new user, has appeared on the scene to continue the edit war started by Navnløs. Landon1980 has ignored the talk page discussion and made accusations that the IP editors were using open proxies. A DNS search shows this to be untrue. a Warning for 3RR violation was issued to Landon1980 but after his fourth revert he blanked the warnings here claiming them to be irrelevant. Fair Deal (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Decision deferred pending checkuser - The odds of those IP addresses all being independent people is pretty close to the odds that I'm going to be elected President this fall. 142.177.76.36 (talk · contribs) and 142.163.22.182 (talk · contribs) are the same dial-up ISP. All of them but 99.251.226.121 (talk · contribs) are dial-up ISPs. So it's probably either the same person IP hopping or someone getting their friends to go in. I'm going to ask for two checkusers (1) to determine whether Landon1980 is a sock of the blocked Navnløs (talk · contribs) and (2) to determine whether our IP-hopping friend is a sock of Niderbib (talk · contribs). --B (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a cursory review of the contributions of Landon1980 and Navnløs proves they are not socks. They have edited simultaneously on multiple occasions. --B (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser says everyone is unrelated. The IPs are obviously related in some fashion (sockpuppets or meatpuppets) ... but ... whatever. Article protected. --B (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:PetraSchelm reported by User:AnotherSolipsist (Result: )


"Consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule."--I reverted four separate changes (made today, by Another Solipsist) in consecutive reverts instead of one revert, but could easily have consolidated them into one revert. (No single change was reverted twice, let alone 3x.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: PetraSchelm, you misunderstand the meaning of "consecutive" in this context. When an editor does two edits and no other editor edits the article between those two edits, so that the two edits are listed consecutively in the page history, then those two edits are considered "consecutive" and are generally counted as one edit for 3RR. Your edits are not consecutive. Other editors edit between your edits, and each of your edits appears by itself, not immediately preceded or followed by another of your edits, in the page history. Therefore, to avoid violating 3RR you need to avoid doing any more reverts on that page until 24 hours after the first (or second) revert. If there are really 4 reverts, you might want to self-revert one of your edits back to the previous version so that you won't be violating 3RR. However, I have difficulty seeing the 1st "revert" as being a revert since the equivalent sentence doesn't exist in the earlier version. Perhaps an argument could be made that the word "people" is being used to mean the same or similar thing in the two versions even though the sentences are different. Note that 3RR does not allow more than three reverts on a page by an editor within a 24-hour period even if the reverts are all on different parts of the page. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional information. (Third party comment - replacing my initial summary comment with this one that includes diffs)

  • Disclosure: I've made a variety of edits to the page over the last few days and have been active in the talk page discussions. Only one of my edits was a revert (plus two immediate self-reverts to discuss the proposed changes first).
  • The reported series of edits was part of an edit war that involved multiple editors on opposing sides of a dispute. It has since been resolved amicably, at least for the time being.
  • I concur with User:Coppertwig that the first listed diff in the report does not appear to be a revert, leaving only three.
  • User:PetraSchelm is new and has never seen a 3RR report before as far as I know. I alerted her to the 3RR policy a couple weeks ago and she's been careful to avoid edit warring. She may have had a misunderstanding of some of the policy, that's since been clarified by User:Coppertwig above. I'm sure she will take it to heart as she has shown herself to be a civil good-faith productive editor in the several weeks she's been working on the project.
  • The user who posted this 3RR report was a participant in the content dispute. He made more than three reverts within 24 hours, though without using the term "revert" in most of the edit summaries. The following list of diffs includes only the subset of his edits to that page during that 24 hours that involve reverting contested text:
  • I am not reporting these diffs to file a 3RR report against User:AnotherSolipsist, just for context and more complete record of both sides of the incident.
  • I recommend this report be closed with no preventive block against either editor. Involved editors have settled on a consensus solution for now and there's no edit warring in progress at this time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ed Fitzgerald reported by User:Childnicotine (Result:no action)

  • Previous version reverted to: [101]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: Reported user has edited since 2005 and certainly knows of the rule
Comment, not all of Ed's reverts are consecutive, and therefore the three revert rule does not apply. Also, your changes have been challenged by at least one other editor, making this a content dispute that needs to be discussed on the talk page of the article. --clpo13(talk) 07:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, this appears to be an exact duplicate of a report above, which was dismissed. --clpo13(talk) 07:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Response The result of the previous complaint (which dealt with the first four diffs provided) was a finding that the 2nd and 3rd edits were together one revert. In this instance, inspection of the fifth "revert" (which would be the fourth, if the 2nd and 3rd are one revert) will show that it's not a revert at all. None of the material posted was removed from the article. The "see also" link stayed, but was moved from a prominent position in the list to a less prominent one. The two references given, which had been attached to the "see also" link were moved to the section of the article which discussed the issue under question, where they more properly belonged. I also, in fact, added back in a category which had previously been deleted as aprt of my reversions, but which had been neglected to be restored. In short, rather than a reversion, I simply edited the article in a reasonable fashion.

Further, I have to protest that neither in this instance nor in the previous one was I notified by the complaintant that he or she had filed here. The length of time I've edited on Wikipedia or my presumed knowledge of the 3RR rule is irrelevant, the notification of both a possible 3RR violation and the act of filing a complaint is a necessary part of the process and a matter of Wikipedian courtesy.

Ironically, as I've tried to make clear, my editing in this instance has been in an attempt to help the complaintant add the material in a way that would be permanent and not reverted, as I tried to make clear on both the user's talk page [102] and the talk page of the article in question [103]. Clearly, I have been less than effective in putting my poitn across. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 08:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Ed Fitzgerald appears to have stopped reverting after becoming aware at 01:34, 26 April of this 3RR report. The 2nd and 3rd reverts are consecutive and can count as one. The 5th revert does not appear to me to count as a revert: it moves material, and it removes a name, but the removal of the name is (according to the edit summary) per BLP and therefore exempt from 3RR. However, there is an additional revert not listed above, at 21:01, 25 April 2008, so there are still four reverts within 24 hours. Although it's a nice courtesy to inform someone of a 3RR report, you should not expect such a notification, and I believe the usual practice on this noticeboard is that people can be blocked after violating 3RR if they have ever been notified of the existence of the rule. There was a suggestion in bold near the bottom of this thread at the Pump to change the policy to require warnings, but it didn't fly. On the other hand, since blocks are not used punitively, if you seem to have stopped reverting you're unlikely to be blocked, though you may want to consider self-reverting one of your reverts to be on the safe side. This case is the sort of thing I was thinking of when I said "One can revert 4 times in 24 hours without doing any editwarring, in my opinion" (in that discussion I just linked to). (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
My memory is that I stopped editing that night and didn't see the 3RR notification (which did not come from the complaintant) until I logged in the next day. I don't think there was a fourth revert at any time. My edit at :38 is the first, the two edits at :43 and :44 count as the second, and the third was at :48. My edit at 16:01 was completely unrelated, and the one at 20:20 dealt with the some of the same information, but in a different part of the article, and was a removal because of BLP concerns. The next edit at 20:26 was the one I described above where I moved some of the material in question around and added back some that had been forgotten, and again removed one piece of information because of BLP concerns - so it's basically an edit. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Coppertwig's assessment is correct, so no action. It would be better for Ed to do less reverting and get other people involved, obviously. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but you might note that after my second' revert, I posted to the user's talk page to explain that I wasn't trying to block the information from being posted, I was trying to help insure that it was posted in a way that it wouldn't be removed. The result was another restore by an IP editor, my third revert, a similar note to the talk page of the IP editor, and a 3RR complaint by the original editor, who still doesn't seem to understand what I was doing.

Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Just to clarify for future reference: even if edits are "unrelated", they can still violate 3RR. The rule is no more than 3 reverts on a page in a 24-hour period. Four reverts are a violation even if they are on different parts of the page and unrelated to each other. I'm sorry the other editor(s) didn't seem to understand what you were trying to do. Maybe if you explain it on the talk page and wait for them to comment before editing they'll be more receptive. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, which was quite helpful - I actually misunderstood the rule, thinking that it applied only to reverts of the same material. Very useful to know for the future. So much for the presumption that someone who's been around for 3 years is presumed to know the rules. I indeed "knew" the rule, but I knew it wrong. Thanks again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Watchdogb reported by User:Top Gun (Result: Page protected)

  • Previous version reverted to: [104]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: User:Watchdogb is constantly removing sourced edits claiming they are not reliable. However that source is used by the Indian goverment and other Southeastern Asian nations for their own research. In any case he is constantly claiming to upholding Wikipedia rules, but obviously doesn't mind to revert 5 or 10 times to make his point.
Clearly you do not know what 3RR is. I did not make 3 reverts in any 24 hours. The so called revert #9,#7 and #3 are not a revert. It is actually an edit and not a revert. So called revert 4 and 6 are the exact same entry and not two different reports. Watchdogb (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No actualy number three is not a revert, but if you sum it up with your next three edits 12:18, 24 April 2008 12:21, 24 April 2008 12:23, 24 April 2008 you get a revert of everything the previous editor did. Top Gun

Page protected. Rjd0060 has protected the page. (See also a similar report on the same page below.) (comment by non-admin.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Watchdogb reported by User:Top Gun (Result: Page protected)

  • Previous version reverted to: [105]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: User:Watchdogb is constantly removing sourced edits claiming they are not reliable. However that source is used by the Indian goverment and other Southeastern Asian nations for their own research. In any case he is constantly claiming to upholding Wikipedia rules, but obviously doesn't mind to revert 5 or 10 times to make his point.
First, this is not violating 3RR as only 3 edits are made within 24 hours which is not a violation. Second, the article is locked and therefore no need for any block even if I did violate - which I didn't. Watchdogb (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a violation, the name of the rule is 3 revert rule, and buddy you made 5 reverts. One after the other. Three of which within 24 hours. Top Gun

Page protected. The page has been protected by Metros. (comment by non-admin) Coppertwig (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Top_Gun reported by User:watchdogb (Result: Page protected)


User has already been blocked once for 3RR violations. : Note that this user is the same person as the IP (87.116.170.203) here you see the IP signs Top Gun. More evidence are herehere here.

As it may be hard for admins to see this user keeps reinstating the following line in the article:

On April 23, a large-scale military offensive was mounted against the LTTE defence line in the northern peninsula of Jaffna. After several hours of intense fighting the SLA was beaten back with heavy casualties sustained on both sides. Like always the casualty figures were disputed by both sides of the conflict. The SLA claimed to have sustained 165 soldiers killed, 20 missing and 84 wounded in the day-long battle while they killed 100 militants. In contrast the LTTE said they themselves lost 25 men. Whatever the numbers this was the costliest battle yet for the SLA since the October 2006 debacle when 129 soldiers were killed and 515 wounded after a LTTE counter-offensive in Jaffna.

. Watchdogb (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am reinstating that because it is a sourced edit. There is a reference. And it is also a mainstream news source, because you are advocating mainstream as a primary precondition mr Watchdogb. And yes I am user 87.116.170.203 I just don't care about signing in sometimes. User Watchdogb should be blocked for reverting sourced edits. And I have not been the only one whose edits he has reverted, there are also other users.Top Gun

Nope, it was a content dispute in which you reverted to your version 4 times violating 3RR. Watchdogb (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I reverted only after you reverted, so you started reverting first. You are now accusing me only because you are trying to fight back because I reported you for violations of 3RR on two articles at the same time.Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Rjd0060 has protected the page until May 15. (comment by non-admin) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yankees10 reported by User:67.137.0.28 (Result: No violation)


It seems user Yankees10 is completely against updating the Tyrell Johnson entry with information on his early years or information surrounding his recent drafting. I warned him on his user page not to revert anymore (which he has since removed from his page with the comment "funny asshole") and he kept doing so. Please keep him from reverting entrys so we can update them without it all taken off.

67.137.0.28 (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have only reverted your edit regarding the extra draft info thing twice, so this is not even a 3RR violation, and for one thing you are adding things that should not be there--Yankees10 02:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I see four times you have reverted that page today. You're explanations have been from "none of this shit is necessary" to "why are you doing this." 67.137.0.28 (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I reverted for differnt reasons, and most of the things you wrote was just commentary and opinion.--Yankees10 02:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The three-revert rule says that you can't do more than 3 reverts on a page in a 24-hour period. It doesn't matter whether the reverts were of different text on different parts of the page for different reasons; you still can't do a total of more than 3 reverts. Note also that users can be blocked for edit-warring even if the number of reverts does not violate 3RR. I encourage both of you to use the article talk page to discuss and come to an understanding with each other about the article content. It may help to refer to policy to support your arguments. If necessary, see dispute resolution. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)'
Oh I didnt know that, I am willing not to touch it for know, because I really dont want to get blocked specially at a busy time--Yankees10 02:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey what do you know, here is a 5th revert: 02:30, 27 April 2008. This is pretty blatent edit warring and we still haven't seen anything on the talk page about why he's reverting. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And now he's admitted that he wasn't even paying attention to all of it and some of it should've stayed [106] 67.137.0.28 (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No violation. Yankees10 never received a proper 3RR warning. (The link above does not go to a warning at all. The actual warning given did not mention 3RR). Yankees10 did finally join in this discussion and stated above, at 02:47 UTC on 27 April: Oh I didnt know that, I am willing not to touch it for know, because I really dont want to get blocked specially at a busy time.. This sounds to me to be a promise to stop edit warring. Please note that the entries in this report are not proper diffs, and the report (plus those below) could have been rejected on those grounds. In future, please use {{uw-3rr}} to notify editors, and put the notice at the bottom of their Talk page not the top. The two reports below have the same defect: no proper 3RR warning was given prior to the last revert. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed, although Yankees10 stated Oh I didnt know that, I am willing not to touch it for know, because I really dont want to get blocked specially at a busy time.. at 02:47 UTC on 27 April, he went in again and reverted it a 6th time] at 13:42 on 27 April, 10 hours later without saying anything on the discussion page. Of course this was just a few hours before being blocked for a different 3RR violation. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yankees10 reported by User:67.137.0.28 (Result: No violation )


Blatent edit warring. 5 reverts within 24 hours, this isn't the 1st or only time either. This user seems to have a history of blatently reverting repeatedly often without even paying attention to what he's reverting.[107] -67.137.0.28 (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No violation. No proper 3RR warning was given. All these edits took place before this user became aware of the 3RR issue. See previous report. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please like seriously stop trying to block me, what is the point, I was reverting vandalism--Yankees10 13:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yankees10, these were not vandal reverts. If the added material was unsourced, or did not belong, you should have discussed it on the Talk page. If you continue to edit war on these articles, you will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it wasnt vandalism, but it was something that all that we are trying to get all NFL players to have, your right I should have discussed it.--Yankees10 14:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yankees10 reported by User:67.137.0.28 (Result: No violation)


Another example of edit warring and blatent repeated reverting of user's posts. At least three within a 24 hour period on this article as well. Three strikes and you're out. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all these are not even reverts I am re-adding a word that was being removed--Yankees10 13:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No violation. Only three reverts are listed above. You need four reverts in 24 hours to violate 3RR. In any case there was no proper 3RR warning given; see above.
Yankees10, you are on thin ice here; both of your recent comments on this board show a misunderstanding of the rules. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I dont plan on touching any of these article for the next couple of days, because I really don't wont to be blocked today or any time soon, since its NFL Draft day, and I'm like the only one updating the players.--Yankees10 14:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:GDD1000 reported by User:BigDunc (Result:24 hours)


Editor is repeatedly adding unsourced information and WP:OR to the article, and is making false accusations of vandalism despite three editors pointing out the information is not properly sourced. BigDunc (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems like an extremely clear case, so blocked for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yankees10 reported by User:Tromboneguy0186 (Result:24 hours)

Editor is repeatedly adding a sub-category to the article, which is not needed as it is covered y a parent category. I and another user have both asked him to stop.

Yes, the three-revert rule was breached, but the warning did not come until afterward. Therefore, no block for now per EdJohnston in above reports. If Yankees10 continues to edit war, he's likely to get blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

wow, how about the incivility he had at my talk page see:User talk:Yankees10#Joe Flacco and sub-categories, saying: "It's not there? Are you blind" and "Fuck it", is way worse than me reverting something that is right--Yankees10 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not good, but also not what this noticeboard is for. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Where do I leave that--Yankees10 19:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Is it acceptable to directly solicit another user to revert the same article for which one has already surpassed 3RR? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. on Joe Flacco. Per the note from Tromboneguy. If you ask someone else to make a revert for you, that's as bad as reverting the page yourself. This happened after Yankees10 must surely have known about the 3RR rules. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yankees10 also asked user Chrisjnelson on his User Talk page to make reverts for him on the Tyrell Johnson page the with the explanation "Can you help me get rid of the stuff he adds if he adds it again, I dont want to be blocked". User Chrisjnelson replied "Yeah no problem." although he admitted "Some of it's decent info." As anyone can see, this is chronic abuse of the system here. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:DavidPaulHamilton reported by User:CharlesFinnegan (Result:protection)

  • The alleged fourth reversion chiefly reverts a blanking by CharlesFinnegan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) himself, a mysterious account with less than a dozen edits of which the 2nd, 4th, and 6th are blankings on the same obscure policy page. Does fixing sock-puppet vandalism count? (Also, DPH has been editing for a month, and has not been warned of 3RR.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • who are you to make those accusations and personal attacks ? "Blanking" a policy that has no consensus is not vandalism. Thunderbird2, Tony1 and Gene Nygaard blanked this policy too because what DavidPaulHamilton does is vandalism and WP:POINT. DavidPaulHamilton is an obvious sockpuppet not me CharlesFinnegan (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • FYI this is a warning but as he is a sockpupet he didnt need one. CharlesFinnegan (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a rather widespread dispute. I have decided to fully protect the page for one week, despite concerns about doing so, namely, the fact that some of these same users were involved in a dispute on this page in March, leaving me wondering how likely this protection is to be effective. If the edit war continues when protection is lifted, I think liberal dishing out of blocks would be in order. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:86.27.230.177 reported by User:bardcom (Result: 24 hr)


The editor has started an edit war this evening over just about all the edits I've done. The editor alleges that I am not editting in good faith, and am merely removing all mention of the term "British Isles". Despite the vast majority of my edits being held up as good edits by a large number of editors over time, this editor reverts my edits without good reason, counter arguments, research or alternative references.

  • Y Done, blocked 24 hours. Nakon 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hopping reported by User:Antelan (Result: 31 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [108]


Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Antelan & User:Orangemarlin reported by User:Hopping (Result: No action)

  • Previous version reverted to: [109]


  • No violation. Reporting editor has already been blocked for WP:OWNing this article, and is now edit-warring on it again (for which another admin has just blocked him - [114]). Plus you don't get to report two separate editors for 3RR by adding their edits together (unless they're sock/meatpuppets, in which case WP:SSP is your correct venue).Black Kite 18:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I am most definitely not a sock of Antelan. And I'm not a meatpuppet either, unless we've changed the definition so that two individuals with the same concern about these edits are considered meats. This is a bogus and abusive use of the noticeboard. Are there further sanctions available to deal with Hopping's methods? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • He's already been blocked for 3RR. If he comes back again to edit-war over this a much longer block will be in order. (Oh, and I'm quite aware you're not a sock of Antelan!). Black Kite 18:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dorftrottel reported by User:Loodog (Result: No violation)

Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


  • Dispute over inclusion of image on Physical attractiveness. Editor has been told each time to come to talk page rather than revert again.--Loodog (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Loodog (talk · contribs) assumes ownership of the article, the mentioned talk page consensus exists in his/her fantasy alone. The first edit listed above is not a revert, but my original edit. Loodog was the first to revert, and warned against 3RR before the fact, a characteristic of the seasoned edit warrior. Moreover, he overeagerly also reverted a useful edit by a third editor and refused to restore that edit, despite being informed of it. Also, as User:Tanthalas39 correctly pointed out here, Loodog, which of course he forgot to mention is the other party in this stupid little edit war. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 19:46, April 28, 2008
  • I have now filed an RfC at the article talk page, like I should have done at once. See also this discussion at WP:RSN (permlink), of which Loodog was notified but chose not to respond to. Dorftrottel (talk) 20:14, April 28, 2008
  • No violation. Only 3 reverts, and certainly no consensus at talk. Black Kite 20:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bermudatriangle reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: 24 hours)


despite this being a new user, they seem to be aware of wikipedia protocol and have quoted AGF to me etc.

I gave a 3RR warning, and suggested that they may wish to revert their previous edits, however the user has refused to do so, even though I have made them well aware of 3RR. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I messed up the diff times, I have corrected these.

I should add that the above reverts are not only against consensus, but also disruptive. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My last revert is nothing to do with my previous reverts. I consider it is content dispute and your creation of uncited article and then linking it to another page is borderline vandalism.Bermudatriangle (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Your last revert was on the same article. The first four reverts within a 24 hour period are enough to violate 3RR. The last revert while it did relate to another section of the article, was still in violation of 3RR. You are well aware of this, considering that I copy/pasted the following from the 3RR article onto your talk page:

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.

My edit was most certainly not vandalism, I put a link to a wikipedia article, there was nothing remotely close to vandalism on the edit in question. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To me it is vandalism. You have edited on Diana, Princess of Wales is only about her virginity. Now you are taking interest of an Institute under her name. Do you think others are insane here?Bermudatriangle (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Do I think others are insane? well I could answer that in a slightly witty but predictable manner, however if I did, then I would fall foul of wikipedia civility rules. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.. No consensus to include that section, and 3RR clearly broken. Black Kite 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Matthew reported by User:TreasuryTag (Result: No action)


    • Was blocked and unblocked. I'm not gonna fight over it, so hopefully a third admin will look over everything. It's certainly a mess right now. Wizardman 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
At this point the question is now whether to protect the page, a block on either side now appears unnecessary. Wizardman 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic IP 62.134.88.16 to 62.134.89.40 reported by 207.102.64.207 (talk) (Result: Semi-protected)


Page protected. Semi-protected two weeks. Nothing worse than an edit war between two IP-hopping clubs. Some of the editors you complain about in this report seem to be trying to carry out the Gdansk double-naming compromise. I see the beginnings of a discussion of naming issues (and a request for references) on the Talk page and I hope it continues. No IPs have so far joined that Talk discussion, not even the submitter of this report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Koov reported by User:Skalskal (Result: Duplicate report)

  • 1st revert: [120] April 27, 23:40
  • 2nd revert: [121] April 28, 17:01
  • 3rd revert: [122] April 29, 17:13
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [123] April 29, 20:29

Multiple reverts despite repeated requests to bring the changes to the talk page.

Skalskal (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Littlebutterfly reported by User:John Smith's (Result: 48 hours )

The 2nd through 4th reverts were restoring material first added at 05:45, 29 April 2008.

The user did not receive a 3RR warning in this case, but he has been both warned (as recently as the last week) and blocked for 3RR in the past - Littlebutterfly understands the rule quite well now. However, I am notifying him of this report.

Also the last reversion ("4th revert" above) made here shows incivility in the edit summary, which displays bad faith on his part. Littlebutterfly is also edit-warring with multiple users, rather than just one. John Smith's (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: The user was warned about 3RR and informed of the policy using a standard template in March of 2008. See Diff: [124]. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Commment: (ec) Each of the four reverts is adding the text "In 1751 the emperor of [[Qing Dynasty]] decreed that the Dalai Lama and the Qing [[Amban]] should exercise power jointly."; the first also makes other changes. The first revert reverts precicely to the given "previous version reverted to". I added information in italics to the above report, including UTC times. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocked. by Seicer for 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Neil Brown reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: 31 hours/72 hours )

  • 1st revert: 1:54, 29 April Adds "Although Peck had not mentioned chickens"; reverts precisely to the given previous version.
  • 2nd revert: 22:46 Re-adds same text.
  • 3rd revert: 23:00 (I cannot confirm whether this is a revert. (Coppertwig)
  • 4th revert: 23:56 Changes "conspiracy theories surrounding" to "invention and propagation" of HIV. Previous version reverted to: 23:40, 29 April 2008
  • 5th revert: 23:59 Adds paragraph beginning "[Barack Obama]] had at first supported his campaign adviser and pastor"; previous version reverted to: 23:00, 29 April 2008
  • 6th revert: 0:09, 30 April Re-adds "Although Peck had never mentioned chickens"
  • 7th revert: 0:51 Changes "specializes" to "claims to specialize"; previous version reverted to 00:33, 30 April 2008
Blocked. by Seicer for 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that I also listed diffs of reverts by Grsz11, who filed this report; that user has not been blocked. Coppertwig (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I added information (in italics) to this report and struck out the original previous version reverted to. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Reverts by Grsz11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log):

Coppertwig (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. for 72 hours. seicer | talk | contribs 02:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Koov reported by User:Skalskal (Result: 24 hours each)

  • Previous version reverted to: [125]


  • 1st revert: [126] April 28, 17:02
  • 2nd revert: [127] April 29, 01:58
  • 3rd revert: [128] April 29, 17:20
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [129] April 29, 20:22

Multiple reverts despite repeated requests to bring the changes to the talk page.

Skalskal (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of you are engaged in edit warring with highly uncivil edit summaries, 24 hours each. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that Koov has edited the Gallery of country coats of arms [130], Gallery of sovereign-state flags [131] page and Template:Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China as 149.4.42.48 (City University of New York IP) after he was blocked [132] and before the 24 hours is up. You can see that 149.4.42.48 is Koov as a) the edit summary of his changes is identical to Koov's b) other edits from the CUNY 149.4.xx.xx range on Gallery of sovereign-state flags that re-insert the same text he's had reverted and use the same (or identical) phrasing he does (it's possible he just doesn't log in sometimes) c) edits by CUNY IP's (e.g [133] [134] [135] [136]) on the other (fairly small set of) pages that Koov edits that make the same changes he's making. Ha! (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Total Ignorent boy reported by User:mark_t_young (Result: blocked indef as a sock of Komodo lover )

  • Previous version reverted to: [137]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [142]
Blocked. indef. For a summary of the sock reports as well as a Dec. 2007 checkuser finding, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Komodo lover (10th). This editor has a distinctive pattern of contributions. Another sock, User:Mr. Loner, was reported on this board a week ago, and was also indef blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Komodo lover. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Londo06 reported by User:Collectonian (Result: No action )


This editor has suddenly decided to take over an existing merged article to replace it with a duplicate of Adam Powell (rugby player), despite numerous requests that he stop and that he is wrong in doing such an action. He also keeps blanking the article's previously existing talk page, and its archives. Collectonian (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment No action. Both parties violated 3RR, but peace seems to have broken out. See User_talk:Collectonian#Adam Powell of Neopets. Since User:Collectonian is an experienced submitter of 3RR reports, I'd hope that he understood the rules better than this. Though his idea for disambiguation was better, that's not a licence for a revert war. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)