Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive72

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:Panel 2008 reported by User:Pundit (Result: Not blocked for now, will be blocked if edit warring resumes)

  • Previous versions reverted to: different varieties, in all cases Romania is one way or another placed in CE region.


  • Additional two warnings followed.

The user was warned about 3RR rule, and was also advised against vandalizing the page with un-sourced and non-factual information. The user persistently introduces Romania to Central European countries list, against an established consensus. Pundit|utter 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Not blocked for now - It has now been nearly 24 hours since the user has edited. (This is not a reflection on the report, which was submitted in a timely fashion - it's a reflection on nobody noticing it.) Had I looked at the report yesterday, I obviously would have blocked the user. At this point, I'm more inclined to wait. If the user reverts again, say something here or on my talk page and I (or someone else) will block him/her. If not, then there is no need for a preventative block. --B (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alexander Vince reported by [[User:87.63.204.34 (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)]] (Result: Not blocked)

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]

Tieto is a company, but the reported user wants the page to redirect to Tiësto and repeatedly vandalizes the page. The user has not responded to my warning.

  • Not blocked - The page you created is not the right way to create a disambiguation page and the user was correct to revert it. I will fix it so that the page will have links both places. --B (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Drabj reported by User:Biophys (Result: Already blocked)

That is a possible sockpuppet with less than 100 edits.Biophys (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is Fifth revert. See his talk page for warnings by different people.Biophys (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked. Drabjd's account has been blocked indefinitely by Moreschi (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), with a blocking summary of "Trolling only, likely sock of banned user Jacob Peters.". Additionally, I am not issuing warnings or blocks to any other parties involved in the warring at this time. Anthøny 18:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:N-g-Efrat reported by User:Tagishsimon (Result:1 week )

  • Previous version reverted to: 16:31, 1 May 2008 - Note, I hope Ive pointed to the right version, but I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "Previous version reverted to".
  • Diff of 3RR warning: No 3RRW given ... This is a notification of an edit war that has been going on since 23 April 08, and which has had 12 reverts to date. Amply sufficient messages of concern have been left on User talk:N-g-Efrat and User talk:Zolferkatter to no effect.

User:N-g-Efrat turned up on Wessex Institute of Technology on the 23rd April, and wishes to add a controversial section into the article. He has been pointed to the discussion of the issue on Talk:Wessex Institute of Technology#Removal of the Controversy section:. Then up pops a single issue account, User:Zolferkatter, seeking to add the same thing. Appeals on User talk:Zolferkatter have gone unheeded. Today, in combination, N-g-Efrat and Zolferkatter have exceeded 3RR. It's certainly a sockpuppet; whether they're using th same IP or not is open to question.

See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/N-g-Efrat and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/N-g-Efrat --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week. both User:N-g-Efrat and User:Zolferkatter. The first for edit warring, and the second for actual 3RR violation. If an admin closes the WP:SSP case as confirmed, then an indef for Zolferkatter would be appropriate per WP:SOCK. Zolferkatter, whether sock or not, reverted four times. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Contact cascade reported by User:AVand (Result: 48 hours)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [2]
Comment: Only three reverts are listed. It takes four reverts to violate the three-revert rule. Escape Orbit has also done three reverts. The article talk page has not been edited since September. I encourage both users to discuss the article content on the talk page. (non-admin opinion.)☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Edit warring to insert unsourced negative information about the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The language he was warring to include seems to violate WP:NPOV. Another editor invited him to restate it neutrally and provide sources but he did not do so. I counted four reverts in 25 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mikkalai reported by User:Nicklausse (Result: Stale)

  • Previous version reverted to: [3]


This was in turn reverted by Mikkalai 16:43, 28 April 2008

This user is essentially trying to make Nairi part of Armenian history.

Mikkalai is continuing to revert the content of this page [4], as well as reverting another template [5]. Nicklausse (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverts by Nicklausse:

Previous version reverted to: 00:40, 28 April 2008

Coppertwig (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1st: yes, this is part of the Ancient Near East.
3rd: that was not added - it was copy-edited and moved.
4th: Somebody else came along and reverted to a much earlier version, undoing changes that even administrators had made to the article.
Nicklausse (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Re the third diff: OK, not all those words were added. The word "contend" was changed to "tackle" by Mikkalai and changed back to "contend" by Nicklauss, so it is a revert. I have the impression other material was reverted too because the diff of the two Nicklauss versions (15:41 and 16:20, April 28) looks (at a glance) as if it has fewer differences than the diff of the Mikkalai and Nicklauss versions (16:04 to 16:20). Possibly a move of material was reverted. Reverting to a version by an administrator is not an excuse to violate the 3RR rule. In any case, the reverting seems to have stopped; almost no editing on the article at all in the past 24 hours, but instead there is discussion on the talk page. That's good. (non-admin opinion.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has cared enough to do anything in 3 days, so I guess we can call it stale. --B (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bless sins reported by User:Merzbow (Result: Stale)

Games 3RR by reverting 4 times in 25 hours and 10 minutes. He's a very experienced user who's been blocked for this in the past. - Merzbow (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly notice that it is not 24 hours. Yes it is a little over 24 hours, but I never intended to game the system. If I like gaming the system, then Merzbow should be able to find other examples. Yet the history of this article and other articles show that I have restricted myself to no more than 2 reverts per day (often even 1 revert a day).
Secondly, there is a question on Merzbow's involvement. Merzbow reverted me on Banu Qurayza [6] without even caring to discuss why or joining the discussion on the talk page. From that perspective Merzbow's contribution looks like that of a drive-by reverter. Isn't drive-by reversion against the spirit of 3rr?Bless sins (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid I might bear some responsibility for this report as I mistakenly talked about such a violation on the article talk page and BS's user talk page (asking him to self-rv). I was mistaken in thinking that these reverts all occurred within 24 hours (and mistaken on the extent of the last revert).
However, I do think that this reverting is disruptive, no matter whether BS just got lucky or was waiting for the 25 hour mark. I certainly think it is not proper for him to fault Merzbow for his reverting or the report. Str1977 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I too find your reverting disruptive (did you notice it reduces the article by 2k everytime?). But this is not the avenue to solve disputes. Do you also realize that you've made 3 reverts in less than 8 hours?Bless sins (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
BS, this is not the venue to discuss my edits but yours. I do not engage in constant blanket reverting aside from countering yours. I actively work towards finding solutions. I made three reverts and stopped then because I follow the rules. I do not care that your version as 2 KB less litter included. Str1977 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Str1977, the edit conflict form which the edits are being reported is something you too were engaged in. You said that you "stopped then because I follow the rules". Well I didn't break the rules either, as I did not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. "I actively work towards finding solutions" as do I by actively engaging on the talk page, and responding to you before I revert. I'm not sure the same can be said of Merzbow, who made a drive by revert.Bless sins (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
And working towards finding solutions includes reverting 4 times in 25 hours? Once I figure out what the heck is going on I will join in the talkpage, but I have every right to revert an immediately objectionable POV edit if I see one, where I see one. - Merzbow (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If reverting 3 times in less than 8 hours is (as Str1977 did), then reverting in less than 26 hours (but more than 25) can also be considered as working towards a solution. During that same 25 hour period I made 9 responses on the talk page. "Once I figure out what the heck is going on I will join in the talkpage" The talkpage is where I explained my revert. So you reverted without knowing "what the heck [are]" my reasons (or others) were? That's indicative of a drive by revert.Bless sins (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Both you and Str1977 need to cut it out. This edit summary exemplifies the wrong attitude you both seem to have: that someone else's reverting justifies your own. Both of you need to do what Str1977 said and stop with your double standards and quit reverting (and yes, I said both of you). You're both edit warring, which is to say you're both being disruptive, and I'm rather disinclined to take any action that doesn't treat you equally. Can both of you just stop reverting, or am I going to have to get out the hammer? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me just state that I take exception to this "everyone's equally bad" view. If one editor repeatedly reverts to a version that he knows to be controversial, are we not allowed to resist? Str1977 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think any of the versions is considered controversial by the other person :) I personally don't think attempts to get any of the parties blocked is a good way to go. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't have submitted this report. There has been a long dispute on the Qurayza article; there was a mediation but it was closed as being failed. There has been much discussion on the talk page. This is not gaming the system to me, to be sure; and in my opinion filing such reports and trying to get one editors blocked is by no means, by no means the way to go. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me make it clear that I don't fault Merzbow for making this report. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nobody has cared enough to do anything in three days, so I guess we can call it stale. --B (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:B626mrk reported by User:Skomorokh (Result: No block)

  • Previous version reverted to: 15:11, May 1, 2008 (versions reverted to are slightly different; see diffs)

Thank you for your time. Skomorokh 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Not blocked - he hasn't edited the article in 24 hours and in his last comment on the talk page, he seemed content with the result. As the edit warring has stopped, there is no need for a preventative block. --B (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:77.42.187.213 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Not blocked)



  • Note by User:77.42.187.213: Please look at the history page for all the articles in question and you will see that I was reverting vandalism done by Special:Contributions/81.149.22.123 two weeks ago and that User:Smsarmad was undoing my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:77.42.187.213 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't embolden your comments. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not blocked for now - he hasn't edited in nearly 24 hours so it is moot. If either the edit warring or civility issues return, please make a note here and we can block this IP. --B (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Koov reported by User:Ha! (Result: 1 month )

Comment: Even if the IP edit is unrelated, there are 5 reverts within 24 hours. The reverts are deleting one or more of the coats of arms of Kosovo, Palestine, and Western Sahara. I've posted a 3RR warning to WikiDegausser at 02:22, 2 May 2008. (non-admin opinion.) Coppertwig (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 1 month. Yikes! Persistent nationalist POV warring over many different articles. The reverts noted above came right after another 24-hour block. So far more than 95% of his Wikipedia edits have been reverted. Blocked for disruptive editing. No objection to review by another admin; an indef block is a tempting option. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
He probably also uses IP address 149.4.108.148.Biophys (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Carl.bunderson reported (Result: =no vio)

Note please: That this user uses "rv v" (meaning rv vandalism) in his edit summaries but he is not reverting any vandalism, if anything he is actually vandalizing himself. He probably doesn't understand what "rv v" means or is using that to fool others because the talk page makes it clear that that edit is correct but he uses this edit summary since he doesn't have any good reason to rv.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 07:44, 2 May 2008 This user has already been aware of 3RR and was warned about it before but an admin warned him this time too. He disregarded that admin, used foul language with him, and continued his senseless edit warring.
Evidently, the user Carl was reverting was a banned user, meaning his reverts were acceptable (though "rv v" still doesn't apply here). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Some reasons why he should still be blocked:
  • He did not know he was edit warring with a sockpuppet
  • That user could have been falsely blocked as a sock
  • Carl.bunderson is known for childish edit warring on many articles
  • Carl.bunderson is claiming that that language is not Persian, I think someone who knows their own language would know what the language is better
  • He is defying years of consensus on this, you can see for yourself throughout the entire article the language has always been referred to as Persian always, but now he insists that in the top of the infobox it be called something else for no good reason.
  • Conclusion, even if that was a banned user, Carl.bunderson was still edit warring senselessly.

[edit] User:Krzyzowiec reported by User:M0RD00R (Result: blocked, 24 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [7]

National Revival of Poland


Jan T. Gross

The user was today reported for disruptive behavior and personal attacks such as this [8] here [9] was issued final warning [10] but it didn't help at all as can be plainly seen. M0RD00R (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that about 2.5 days might be appropriate given that the last two edits shown are in vio of 3RR and were done after a final warning by Black Kite which also referenced a personal attack. Anybody else want to weigh in here? R. Baley (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The block is per edit warring at that article, as well as incivility and personal attacks (viz: [11]) towards other editors on related discussion pages. Anthøny 23:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kt66 reported by User:Wisdombuddha (Result: Not blocked, will submit checkuser)

  • Previous version reverted to: [12]

Thank you for your time. This user is repeatedly reverting any other editor and not discussing with them.Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Version of the above, reformatted: Previous version reverted to: 15:59, 3 May 2008

The other edits may or may not also be reverts. Truthsayer62 may have also violated 3RR. Wisdombuddha has done 2 reverts and Helen37 has done 1 revert. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Not blocked as the user has retired so it is now moot - I'm going to ask for a checkuser on Truthsayer62, Helen37, and Wisdomofbuddha for obvious reasons. --B (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:67.183.62.211 reported by User:asams10 (Result: No violation)

  • Previous version reverted to: [13]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [25]

Comments: This is edit warring. He is doing the same thing on two other articles, all of which is being reverted by multiple users and violates several Wikipedia and WP:Firearms project policies. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The reverts span much more than 24 hours. I don't see more than about 2 reverts in a 24-hour period. Neither 67.183.62.211 nor asams10 has been making use of the article talk page to explain their edits. Although 67.183.62.211 has received a number of warnings, the warnings don't seem to me to explain clearly what is wrong with the particular material the user wants to insert. 67.183.62.211, please note that editwarring is not endorsed as an editing method. When others revert your changes, you should realize that your changes don't have consensus, and you should discuss the changes on the article talk page and get agreement among the editors before re-inserting. Note that you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't violate the 3RR rule. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and discuss the situation with other editors. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No violation --B (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Matt Lewis reported by User:Wotapalaver (Result: No action)

  • Previous version reverted to: [26]


Wotapalaver (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Defence: I've been stitched up here with the use of an IP - and a weak 'warning' came after my last edit too. We were told to discuss changes when the article was recently locked - Wotapalaver has simply carried on in the same vein. I didn't intend to 3RR - but this guy is writing a entire article to his POV. I have explained why I feel he is "spinning exaggerations" and others agree: he does not have consensus. I feel I have been provoked here by an IP that seems to have turned up to replace Wotapalaver's edits - I was reverting the IP without considering a 3RR total - stupid maybe, but this has happened too easily, in my eyes. My reverts weren't all on the same text - but they certainly were for the less-biased spirit of the pre-existing edit (which was aleady a compromise from my own point of view).--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: I was reverting the "Many Irish" line in the edit (a long dispute), not the Irish language line (which I know nothing about, but others were clearly unhappy with). The problem was that it seems two separate controversial issues were being made in the same constantly replaced edit: I did say this in Talk too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Without making a clear decision right now, it appears to me that blocking Matt Lewis would be rather pointless, as this seems to be an extremely widespread edit war. Normally, I'd just protect the article for this; however, it's already been protected twice recently, making me skeptical that doing it again will solve the problem and reluctant to lock out non-edit warring users again. I think we need a better solution here; possibly one where we're willing to liberally give out edit warring blocks (ideally, some of those "discretionary sanctions" might be nice...) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The article has been full-protected many times in the past, and this has not led to a stable version. The entire edit war we are seeing now started after 16:02 UTC on 1 May, when the last protection expired. How about we offer a tricky plan:
  • (A) Each editor who went over 1RR during the most recent war (1 May 16:00 up through 3 May 03:00 UTC) would be subject to an article ban. They would not be allowed to edit the British Isles article during the rest of the month of May.
This list of editors restricted consists of: Bastun, Matt Lewis, Thingg, Wotapalaver and the two 78.19.* IPs.
  • (B) The ban would be lifted for any of the editors who can come to agreement among themselves on a compromise version of the article. The group includes Bastun, Matt Lewis, Thingg and Wotapalaver. The IP doesn't have to join the agreement, but if he doesn't he is still banned from the article during the month of May. Editors freed from the ban must still observe 1RR for the rest of May. (One revert per article per day).
  • (C) All editors besides the above five are restricted to 1RR for the rest of May on this article.
  • The article ban would be enforced by a delayed 3RR block that would be given to whoever resumes editing before the end of May, unless they've signed to a compromise. Please let me know your opinion of this plan. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Note. The discussion thread that used to be here has been moved to Talk:British Isles#Discussion of how to resolve the 3RR complaint. Please add any additional comments there. I've marked this 3RR complaint as 'On hold pending discussion'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Closing. I am closing this complaint as 'No Action.' I've no objection if another admin wants to follow up anyway. The exposure of the issue at 3RR seems to have temporarily halted the edit war, and the Talk discussion is extremely vigorous. I'm aware that at least three editors skirted the rules about number of reverts. Admins at 3RR do have a tendency to recall the specifics of repeated problems concerning the same file and the same editors, and please don't assume that blocks won't be used in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zhenqinli reported by User:Oiboy77 (Result: 24 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [32]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [37]

Comments: This user has repeatedly being reverting an article where most of the editors have come to a consensus on the issue at hand on the talk page. As a new editor on wikipedia I urge you to look at the edit history of the article carefully some of the edits by people were not reverts. Simply adding information or correcting grammar.Oiboy77 (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Response
The above relevant background and facts should be taken into considerations. --Zhenqinli (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Please look at the edit history carefully 4 edits were made within a 24 hour period. Also please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jin_Jing#Official_policy_from_Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.23Categories It cleary shows that it has been discussed and sources have been provided by various editors that support the statement. Regardless of that fact 4 reverts within 24 hours is a violation of the 3 revert rule.Oiboy77 (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Also it was made clear to you that adding a link to Category:Propaganda in the People's Republic of China does not violate any policy regarding a Biography of a Living person as it is not refering to her as a propagandist and refering to the incident itself.Oiboy77 (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Whether Propaganda should be used as a category or not has been discussed on the talk page, with the conclusion that there are reliable source supporting the inclusion in the Propaganda category. If you ahve concerns about the category User:Zhenqinli should have taken that to the talk page instead of reverting one edit after another. See Talk:Jin_Jing#Official_policy_from_Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.23Categories for the relavant discussion. Novidmarana (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Skyring reported by User:WebHamster (Result: Not blocked)

  • Previous version reverted to: [38]


There is currently a heated discussion taking place on Template talk:Infobox Television about Torchwood and Doctor Who about the use of flags in the infobox template. During the discussion on the infobox talk page Islander (talk · contribs) proposed that no changes should be made until a consensus is reached. Skyring (talk · contribs) a user who has been blocked several times for edit warring and 3RR violation, has ignored this 4 times since the suggestion was made, 3 times within 15 minutes today. In spite of the edit summaries used Skyring was in full knowledge of the ruling, in fact he even voted on it. -WebHamster 13:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • not blocked - reverting three times (which you did yourself, by the way) is outside the scope of this noticeboard. This is silly and if it continues, then we may have to implement Edokter's proposal. A better idea would be to just quit reverting it and wait until some kind of agreement is reached in the discussion. Who really cares if the infobox has a flag or not? --B (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion on the reasons for the edit war is immaterial, but your ability to count is. I reverted twice (not three times as you erroneously stated) to maintain the status quo of the ruling stated in the discussion. Regardless 3RR is 3RR whether you think the reason is silly or not. But now I know what the threshold is I can do what I like, thanks for the heads up. --WebHamster 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In case this isn't clear, one must revert four times to violate 3RR, not three. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:79.22.129.58 reported by User:Rsazevedo (Result:protected)

  • Previous version reverted to: [42]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [48]

User has been consistently changing this player's statistics, removing properly sourced information retrieved from the player's official website, and inserting inappropriate ones from dubious websites. He made the same alterations on the same page using other IP numbers as well, such as 82.59.70.249, 79.3.121.30 and 82.53.67.141. Rsazevedo msg 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Out-of-control edit war: 82.53.67.141 and Rsazevedo are continuing to revert each other rapidly numerous times in violation of 3RR. Neither user has made any effort to explain their edits on the article talk page. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
My reversal hardly needs explaining, since it consists of information previously contained in the article before the aforementioned user's first edit. However, I did include my point of view in the Edit summary of the first reverts. If any proof is needed that the user is wrong, is the fact that other editors have deleted his edits as well. It would be in the best interest of everybody to try to watch and understand what's going on before passing an opinion. Rsazevedo msg 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, no, Coppertwig is right. Both parties are edit warring. Since the user in question is hopping IPs, this situation is rather complex, as it's difficult to block both editors. I'm leaning toward protection right now pending any other input. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. I am "edit-warring". I guess next time I should just let the page be vandalised... (sigh) Rsazevedo msg 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
A dispute over sources is not vandalism. And if this is vandalism, it shouldn't be here, but at WP:AIV. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The user was reported at WP:AIV. And if you'd compared both sources, you'd understand that in this case it is, indeed, vandalism. Rsazevedo msg 22:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll assume it is vandalism. If so, there's no need to report here. This place is for edit warring only. Take vandalism reports only to AIV and, if protection is need, WP:RFPP. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In any case, the page is now semi-protected, and I guess that should settle things down. Greetings, Rsazevedo msg 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ejanev reported by User:Laveol (Result:warning, page watched)


  • The user ecidently knows what 3RR is as previously he was blocked for logging out and reverting with his IP when he was out of reverts with the original account. See the notices on his talkpage [49] and [50]. Moreover he has tones of other notices for disrupting editing (apart from mine). --Laveol T 20:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Both users are edit warring and misusing the term "vandalism" to refer to the other's edits. Both need to stop. I'm watching the article and am ready to block either editor if he or she reverts again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've labeled his edits as vandalism only cause he stalks me and undoes my edits. And moreover he removes info which is sources - I tried to explain to him why sources are needed and added, but he keeps repeating the same stuff again and again. --Laveol T 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Stalking and undoing is bad, yes, but not vandalism. Not all misbehaviour on Wikipedia is vandalism. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oks, I couldn't find a more suitable thing on TG, but it's pretty close (removal of sources and sourced material with no proper reason, I mean)--Laveol T 22:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed a lengthy comment by Ejanev, as it was solely about content. This board is not for resolving content disputes, but for dealing with user conduct, specifically, edit warring/3RR. It may be appropriate to resurrect this comment elsewhere, such as on the talk page or a dispute resolution-related page, so I'll give the diff to the comment here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
He has posted it on a number of places already - you shouldn't have bothered :) --Laveol T 00:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks "Heimstern". The case of "Laveol" is even harder one. He has not pushed the Bulgarian POV for the Macedonian articles just at "Lazar Kolisevski" but for many of them, including the once of the highest importance to the Macedonians.

Please watch his [actions] to see if this case with [Lazar Kolisevski] and myself is an isolated one or a pattern with many articles about Republic of Macedonia and other contributors of Wikipedia. This has already happened: Promoting the Bulgarian POV in articles about Republic of Macedonia by "Laveol's" and other contributors actions. Please let not make a climate where people masked under "Wikipedia Contributors" seed Propaganda negating their neighbors and taking away from them their right to express there views.

Sincerely, --Ejanev (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Krzyzowiec reported by User:M0RD00R (Result: 48 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [51]

Previous reports on disruptive editing [52], [53] [54]M0RD00R (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC).

  • 48 hours, nominator warned --B (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Red4tribe reported by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: 1 week)

User is repeatedly adding a map that he has drawn (and that was challenged for WP:NOR, WP:SYN reasons). On numerous occasions he has been asked not to put up maps that he has drawn himself. Having an uphill struggle asking him to use reputable sources, not self-published websites.

Also multiple reversions at Fall of Constantinople following disagreement with another editor there. I also have reason to believe that he has used a sockpuppet account to revert changes at the same Dutch Empire article - not the first time that he has been accused. I have requested a new checkuser here [56].

He has also commitied the 3RR rule. Just take a look. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Here

[57] [58] [59] [60] [61] (Red4tribe (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

He is removing a reliable map without any good reason why. Has also done the same with many other things. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Edit-warring to insert a map, drawn by himself, of the use of Dutch language around the world that seems to be inadequately confirmed by reliable sources. It is taking liberty with our policies to think this insertion of personal POV is an innocent matter. Checkuser has confirmed that SaudiArabia44 is a sock of this editor. I think that an indef block of SaudiArabia44 ought to be considered, but the 3RR submitter should submit his own report at WP:SSP documenting some form of collusion or abusive editing before this is done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:NuclearVacuum reported by User:Miyokan (Result: Blocked for 24 hours - reporting user warned for edit warring)


User knows full well about the 3RR rule as he just 3RR warned me.[62]. He put this page (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR) on his watchlist as soon as he reverted for the 4th time. [63].--Miyokan (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Reported user blocked for 24 hours. The reporting user has also edit warred extensively over the past few days, but it is not clear whether they were aware of the 3RR policy. I have given them a warning. TigerShark (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Yaf (Result: 96 hours)

Editor continues to edit war on this article, for which earlier edit warring blocks were issued to him. Yaf (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The first three reverts are adding a "{{primary sources}}" tag to a section. The fourth revert is adding a "{{POV}}" tag. The fifth revert inserts the words "which is not necessarily the same as bear arms", for which the previous version reverted to is 16:33, 5 May 2008. Leaving out the first revert but including the fifth, there are 4 reverts within a 24-hour period. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 96 hours. Two previous 3RR violations on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:MSJ1958 reported by User:Joshii (Result:24 hour block )

  • Previous version reverted to: 4:50

User has been constantly adding a "Media" section to the Rochdale article and being a small town it really does not warrant one, let alone one which is merely promotion. Myself, User:Jza84 and recently User:Malleus Fatuarum have tried to reason with him but he persists on promoting his own website. He has already admitted he owns the site on the Talk:Rochdale page. He also posted a comment on his own talk page saying "You may block me but I will be back of that you can be very sure." which shows a clear intention to come back and continue adding this spam disguised as prose. The reason the edition which I included to revert back is so recent is because other editors have been trying to improve the article during the edit war with copyediting. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 04:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:FCYTravis reported by User:Guettarda (Result: Page fully protected)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 06:08, 6 May 2008 (As an established editor he knows better, but I gave him the opportunity to revert himself).
  • Note that this edit, while partially replacing material removed in his fourth revert, does not replace the text that made the fourth revert a revert).
Per the Biographies of Living Persons policy, the information that was being being inserted may be removed without revert limit, based on the fact that it is creating guilt by association between a person who signed a petition questioning the veracity of modern evolutionary theory, and the DI's actions. The material in question does not belong in Picard's biography, and I am fully justified in removing it. FCYTravis (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Not when you are inserting OR into the article. You insisted on inserting your own "plain reading" of a primary source into the article, while removing the version that is amply supported by secondary sources. Adding your own (unsourced) "plain reading" into an article does not fall under the BLP exception to the 3RR. Guettarda (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, of course you'd feel that way - you're the one trying to get me blocked and the one trying to push into the article a guilt by association paragraph. How shocking that you disagree with my view. FCYTravis (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not "trying to get you blocked" - I gave you ample warning and opportunity to undo your revert. Anyway, by your 5th revert you aren't even pretending to be reverting material that you called "guilt by association". Guettarda (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
How disingenuous, Guettarda. That fifth "revert" is a good-faith edit to replace sourced material that I agree I made a mistake in removing. I first replaced it here. You even asked me to replace it here - which I had already done, and apologized to you here. Orangemarlin accidentally removed it here by reverting to a previous version after Relata refero made an edit he objected to. I simply put it back. I have had a talk page conversation with Orangemarlin and he's made no objection. FCYTravis (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, we have a 3RR for a reason. You aren't allowed to revert the article more than 3 times in a day. After you had violated the 3RR and after you had refused to undo your 4th revert, and after you had been reported - you still reverted again. Whatever the reason, you shouldn't revert again. The 3RR is a hard and fast line. After 3 reverts you only revert vandalism. "OM understands" is not an exception to the 3RR. And you are well aware of that fact. Guettarda (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This article probably deserves full protection. There has been severe edit-warring on both sides in the past few days, including canvassing for reverts, so a single block is not appropriate. - Merzbow (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The article has been fully protected per my request on RFPP. Gentlemen, to your corners. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
There was a related discussion about the Rosalind Picard article over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive412#BLP_tag-teaming by User:Orangemarlin. Guettarda participated in that thread but not FCYTravis. All the edits listed above are *subsequent* to the actions discussed in the ANI thread, so we might have grounds to examine them, if protection had not been applied. It is logical to close this complaint with no further action unless a similar dispute between the same participants restarts after the protection is lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please update WP:BLP with this reading of policy. Thanks. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jmlk17 decided to full protect this article. That effectively ended the 3RR case, since it is very uncommon to do both protection and blocks. (The rationale is that 3RR is to stop edit wars, and with full protection, there is no edit war). Do you believe he wasn't following policy when he did that protection? EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely BLP already says "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association."? Relata refero (disp.) 19:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cryptographic hash reported by User:Josiah Rowe (Result: 48 hours)

The first three reverts are about a paragraph being discussed at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Huffington paragraph; I and other users feel it isn't sufficiently related to the article's subject, and Cryptographic hash and one other user feel it is. The last reversion is about a change being disussed at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Parallel incidents and Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Suggested compromise text: I was attempting a compromise between one editor who wanted the "Comparisons with other candidates" section cut back to four sentences and those who wanted it to be the highly detailed, multi-paragraph section currently in the article.

As an admin, I could block Cryptographic hash myself, but I figured that since I was a disputant in the edit war, it would be more appropriate to report him here and let another admin judge. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cryptographic hash has made subsequent additional reverts to the ones noted above by Josiah Rowe on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article. In the following revert, he violated WP:CIVIL in the edit summary. [64] He has also violated WP:CIVIL on the article and user talk pages and has been very rude and disruptive in general. Josiah Rowe has made every possible effort to reasion with and educate the editor, but he refuses to change his behavior. It has been very difficult to work on this article and I am making a formal request that Cryptographic hash be blocked from any further participation on the Jeremiah Wright controversy article. If this request is beyond the 3RR board, could you please refer this to the to the appropriate admin. Thank You 75.31.210.156 (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti reported by User:Miyokan (Result: both blocked 10 days )


User has received several blocks for edit warring, the most recent two were for 1 week each.--Miyokan (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked for 10 days, seeing as both violated 3RR. Miyokan has also been edit-warring elsewhere and has a previous track record of blocks for edit-warring as Ilya1166 (talk · contribs). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Matthew reported by User:TreasuryTag (Result: 48 hour block)

Warning here. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Article is now protected. Any further action would hinder development of a consensus. Matthew (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And three users saying "yes" and you saying "no" and reverting 7 times wasn't consensus?! —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked Matthew and unprotected the article - regardless of the rights and wrongs of this, high speed reverting isn't acceptable. PhilKnight (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Red911 reported by User:Smashville (Result: already blocked )

  • Previous version reverted to: [72]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [80]

--SmashvilleBONK! 01:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Already blocked. --slakr\ talk / 03:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jps57 reported by User:Bryan H Bell (Result: 12 hours )


For some months, editor has been repeatedly reverting edits by most other users on this article and telling one editor on the talk page (Talk:Central_Jersey/Archive_1#Definition) that "I will continue to undo you". --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the history of changes to the Central Jersey article, I realize to my shame that I've been just as guilty of edit warring as the editor I'm reporting. I can't believe I let myself get sucked down into that. I've posted an apology on the article's talk page and resolved to stay away from this editor and the article for the forseeable future. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked Jps57 for 12 hours. Both editors went over 3RR, but Jps57's defence of his actions on the Talk page does not appear collaborative. See especially "I will continue to undo you." EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Coz 11 reported by User:Chicken Wing (Result: 24 hours)

Note: The warning was for a previous near-3RR violation on the same page just days ago for the following reverts:

Chicken Wing (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets be clear here. The user with the problem is Chicken Wing who has decided to try and take over articles and force them to be one sided. He is the one reverting content and refusing to work things out via the edit pages. I, and others, have consistantly told this user to stop being heavy handed and to stop slanting these articles but he chooses to complain about the people instead of being a responsible editor. --Coz (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't continue the dispute on this page. Chicken Wing (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully support Chicken Wing's concern with Coz. I ask that a neutral administrator of WP take a closer look at Coz's WP:COI and make the decision to request Coz to keep future edits solely to the discussion page of all affected articles. To remain in good faith and to [avoid doing any harm] this request is not based on any specific edits made by Coz, but by the perception that biased edits could occur from someone with a COI and that any edits deemed questionable could damage the encyclopedic intent and reputation of Wikipedia. 24.211.155.222 (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Mac OS X (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Knowhands enjoykeep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


  1. 15:27, 6 May 2008
  2. 18:54, 6 May 2008
  3. 19:34, 6 May 2008
  4. 20:04, 6 May 2008
  • Diff of warning: here

—V-train (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Djsasso blocked User:Knowhands enjoykeep for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pietervhuis reported by User:Krawndawg (Result: 1 week )

  • Previous version reverted to: 13:54


  • Diff of 3RR warning: I warned him in my last edit, user is well aware of 3rr


Note that I didn't break the 3 revert rule. The first edit wasn't a revert. The tag I had removed was added a month ago. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Your first edit undid my addition of the NPOV tag. Krawndawg (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point Krawndawg, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period" I removed a tag that was added a month ago, not one that was added today, or yesterday. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you just wait and see what the admin says. Krawndawg (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note that User:Krawndawg have violated previously 3RR rule in the same article although he was not reported [81]. To hide this and many other warnings about edit warring [82], he removed everything from his talk page.Biophys (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note that Biophys is a well known wikistalker and has also violated 3rr on this article and was reported.Krawndawg (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's stay on topic. With regard to this particular Krawndawg-Pieter warring, maybe that comment by Kranwdawg is relevant. Blaming someone to be a "terrorist supporter" certainly does not help consensus building.Biophys (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Biophys, please stop wikistalking me and involving yourself in every article/discussion that I am involved in. This has been going on for months, and I'm becoming increasingly disturbed. I'd prefer if you would stop harassing me please. Krawndawg (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with me. Let's stay on the subject. Pietervhuis tried to negotiate this tag with you, but you flatly rejected his good will offer [83]. That is why this edit warring has started.Biophys (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked Pietervhuis 1 week. This article has been contentious in the past, and there are some problems that still need solving. But an edit-warrior who fights to remove a POV tag has a very high burden of justification, which is clearly not met. Krawndawg did not go over 3RR. Pietervhuis has three previous blocks for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I would just like to point out that Biophys has now decided to "avenge" his friend in the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning article by deleting well sourced and relevant information that I added, in what seems to be a direct response to this. Krawndawg (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:CorticoSpinal reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 1 week)

  • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • See below each revert either goes to a previous version of the article or partially reverts a previous edit. As he is editing, as well as reverting, there may not be exact reversion to a previous version.


Comment: It appears that he's on a 1RR parole, but I can't find the details. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I'd like for all to note that Arthur Rubin has been participating in a civil disruption at chiropractic including obvious gaming of the system as well as deleting cited material. I want all here to realize that reverts made to scope of practice were back to the CONSENSUS version as agreed upon by all regular editors. Whether or not this is an attempt to stonewall, prove a point, disrupt, bait, antagonize me for a reaction, I do not know.
Take a look at his attempts to derail the Scope of Practice for Chiropractic but seemingly putting up random disputes: [84] [85] note the uncivil attack, despite the fact the sources had been discussed checked and rechecked on talk Arthur persists with more misleading edit summaries [86] adding a failed tag yet again to a source that all of the participants at Talk agreed upon [87]. And then, in one fell swoop, Arthur Rubin completely reverts all the NPOV cited text and cites it as a "minor" edit. Arthur's history with chiropactic seems like he wants to deleteor remove anything that he does not personally agree with. This has happened recently as well as seen here and here

He's also been warned not to abuse tools recently

So, what does this boil down to? A chiro-skeptic who has abused his admin privileges and has engaged in tendentious, disruptive edits, all the while NOT participating in the Talk page. For an article as seemingly controversial as chiropractic, and with his experience, is this simply a case of "whoops" or a pattern of questionale edits that is trying to portray the Scope of Practice as severely deficient? I have more diffs if needed, and it should be noted that an uninvolved admin (Swatjester) already deemed the Scope of Practice to be NPOV with quality sources. Lastly, I'm sorry for going to 2RR, but I was merely restoring the consensus version for Scope of Practice. Where AR gets 4RR I don't know, it's not even changing the same thing they're different sections. I'm going to cool off for tonight, there's been a lot of WP:BAIT|baiting]] of me by the skeptics as of late, this is simply an extension of it. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CorticoSpinal&oldid=210897530#1RR_violation There was an agreement for 1RR among other things. QuackGuru 23:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
(interpolated) That particular 1RR parole would have expired. Sorry, Quack, you're disrupting thigs again. I am tempted to withdraw this report because one of the edits reverted is yours, and it's not a good edit. But 3RR is 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]You should not be casting stones, QG. Your block log suggests you're on your 9th life. If you weren't protected by influential admins, you'd be long gone or a topic ban at the least. Here's evidence of YOU breaking a NON-VOLUNTARY 1RR that is part of YOUR probation. There's several other things as well. Your disruption at chiropractic and related pages goes back a looooong time and you're still at it. Take a look: an example of a civil POV push with QGs "scientific investigation" of chiropractic which he pushed despite the majority of editors at Chiropractic feeling it was substandard and needed to be reworked for inclusion. He ignored consensus and attempted to insert it repeatedly, in a disruptive move:

Ignoring the ongoing talk which several editors raised POV tone and validity concerns, QG goes ahead:

  • April 6/08
  • April 7/08
  • April 8/08 Notice how there were 3 separate editors who reminded QG that this was discussion was ongoing and to please wait until the discussion was finished prior to inserting it. He ignored them 3 times, one day after the next. It's this type of tendentious and disruptive editing which has resulted in many edit wars at Chiropractic. QG is a catalyst in most. It has moved to the Veterinary chiropractic article as of late. A majority of editors there felt that QG up to his old tricks with more disruption beginning with adding and renaming a section of the article that had consensus from a majority of editors. The intent, as always is clear: to maximize controversy and drum up the emotions hoping someone (like me in the past) loses their cool. WP:BAIT for sure. Here's recent examples:

Back to chiropractic, on April 18/08: Removing my comments from Talk pages and threatening me with WP:HARASS and WPL:BLOCK. He reverted my comments 3x in a matter of minutes which prevented me from continuing an important conversation 17:52 April 18/08 17:55 April 18/08 He was warned not to do so by Admin Swatjester here Here is is trying to play admin Vassyana against admin Swatjester. These tactics have regularly been used against myself and other editors at chiropractic related pages. There's far, far more, but it seems like admins want to turn a blind eye to when skeptics go overboard. Hopefully univolved admin can take an objective look. Note: I expect Jefffire and Orangemarlin to jump in anytime and attempt to crucify me. They're also part of the anti-chiro bandwagon who will do anything to discredit me. Diffs can be supplied, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

If QG's edit, which CS reverted, is in violation of his parole, then CS is only at 3RR (unless he's reverted again since the last revert in the report). I don't see it as vandalism or a BLP violation, even if it's misguided, though. And, again, if it matters, I see no trace of consensus about Chiropractic in the talk page or the last archive. If there's a consensus earlier, I'd appreciate a pointer to it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, even if your links were evidence, you've misinterpred them. I was incorrectly blocked (but not warned) for alleged misuse of admin tools, but the link above doesn't even support that statement.
And I've only reverted 5 times in about 72 hours. CS has at least 4 reverts in the 48 hours preceding the ones reported here, although claiming a couple times that he's on 1RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I should add that I can't find any evidence that QG is on a 1RR parole, either. Further consideration suggests that CS's 1RR parole expires in about 12 hours; I was counting the 30 days from the block, rather than from the unblock, so even the 2RR he admits should be sufficient for a block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 1 week. There were six reverts by CorticoSpinal on May 7 (UTC), by my calculation. Per this statement, CorticoSpinal agreed on 7 April to a voluntary 1RR restriction at the time he was requesting that his previous indef block be lifted. In his edit summary here, CorticoSpinal said "It doesn't belong here (opinions don't belong in scope) but I'm my own 1RR limit" showing he knows that he has to observe 1RR.
  • Block length is set to one week since that was the length of his last block prior to the indef block that was given in March. (The indef block was lifted in return for a promise of good behavior).
  • Any other admin is welcome to review or modify this block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:ThomHImself reported by OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC) (Result: 48 hours)

Robert J. Marks II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). ThomHImself (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 07:52, 5 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Be honest with readers; see talk")
  2. 08:52, 5 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Perakh's web-published opinion about Marks' writing is now unsourced, thus no longer a reliable source")
  3. 09:47, 5 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210283206 by Orangemarlin (talk) Read the talk page, engage in consensus building")
  4. 04:24, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Note was incorrect; URL given as existence "proof" of another URL has died")
  5. 04:28, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Marks creationist presentation has disappeared; removing everything depending on it per WP:BLP")
  6. 04:46, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210500640 by Orangemarlin (talk) READ, READ, READ. Source for a DIFFERENT topic has vanished. WP:BLP")
  7. 04:48, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Marks' biosketch vanished; replacing with another - or is this COI?")
  8. 05:14, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210503267 by Hrafn (talk) BOTH links in ref are DEAD, not just original; replacing intervening edits per WP:BLP")
  9. 05:52, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Marks publication list now says a paper is in press; no details of proceedings or journal, so unverifiable")
  10. 05:54, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210509708 by ThomHImself (talk) undoing my own change")
  11. 05:56, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210508734 by FCYTravis (talk) Reversion of deletions mandated by WP:BLP unjustified; see talk about links")
  12. 06:14, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 210511271 by FCYTravis (talk) No excuse to replace content disallowed by WP:BLP; I will restore idiotic ref")
  13. 06:18, 6 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* The Evolutionary Informatics Lab website controversy */ Restored the ref with TWO broken links; all other changes are compliance with WP:BLP")
  • Diff of warning: here

—OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There are so many intermixed edits, I needed to place all of the reverts or edits. They are essentially variations of the same theme. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
He has since reverted several more times. Very disruptive here. Baegis (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Second violation of 3RR in two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Eblackwood reported by User:Marcus22 (Result: 24 hour block )

I'm trying to report this, on this article, but I really don't know how to fill all this stuff in about versionlinks and versiontimes and so forth. How do I proceed? I dont want to keep reverting the article myself. Marcus22 (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added the diffs below. As pointed out on your talk page, however, no warning was given. Also, both, to the time I'm posting this, have reverted 9 times in less than 24 hours. I've placed a warning on both user talk pages. Faith (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 1st revert Eblackwood: [88] 22:45, 6 May 2008
  • 1st revert Marcus22: [89]
  • 2nd revert Eblackwood: [90]
  • 2nd revert Marcus22:[91]
  • 3rd revert Eblackwood: [92]
  • 3rd revert Marcus22:[93]
  • 4th revert Eblackwood: [94]
  • 4th revert Marcus22:[95]
  • 5th revert Eblackwood: [96]
  • 5th revert Marcus22:[97]
  • 6th revert Eblackwood: [98]
  • 6th revert Marcus22:[99]
  • 7th revert Eblackwood: [100]
  • 7th revert Marcus22:[101]
  • 1st Nonsense edit Eblackwood: [102]
  • 2nd Nonsense edit Eblackwood:[103]
  • 1st Revert of nonsense, not a violation as it removed obvious vandalism; reverted by Marcus22: [104]
  • 2nd Revert of nonsense, might be in violation as it removed vandalism, but may be considered a change to a preferred version, 8th revert Marcus22: [105]
  • 8th Revert Eblackwood: [106]
  • 9th Revert Marcus22: [107]
  • 9th Revert Eblackwood: [108] Current revision 22:25, 7 May 2008
  • Diff of 3RR warning: Eblackwood [109] (no diff because only post on his talk page); Marcus22 [110]
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Enigma message 16:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:PiCo reported by User:FaithF (Result: Stale. Both warned. )

  • Previous version reverted to: [111]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [116]

This appears to be a case of WP:OWN where PiCo keeps reverting away from the fuller context and meaning of the source material. The Vatican directly referred to exegesis in the source text, which PiCo keeps reverting to a minor clause of "if not the findings" speaking of results, rather than method, not found in the source. When I asked him/her to stop reverting, leaving the warning, a snarky comment was left on my talk, along with the fourth revert to the article, attempting to now claim my edit was "potentially controversial", despite the multiple evidence of PiCo saying our edits said the same thing: "says exactly what yours says, but less verbosely", "you're taking a lot more words to say exactly what was there already", "The two sentences actually say exactly the same thing"..." why, if the two sentences are saying the same thing". Obviously I disagree, and stated as much in Talk. If I am stating the same thing, then his/her continued reverts are obviously disruptive. If my edits are now considered (after I gave the 3RR warning) to be "potentially controversial", he/she will need to show why in talk, rather than the disruptive reverts, something which still hasn't been shown. Faith (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously guys. Stop it. You can see that it's getting no where. Since it's from the 7th I can't do anything but warn you again. Meanwhile, I'm watchlisting the article... ScarianCall me Pat! 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alekishere reported by User:Sthenel (Result: 24 hour block)

Wow. A lot of fighting going on over there. Blocked for 24 hours; clear 3RR vio. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:128.138.82.195 reported by User:Kariteh (Result: 24 hour block )

Clear 3RR vio. Blocked for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mountainsarehigh reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: 24 hour block )

Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. In this report I am treating WP:SPA user's first insertion/deletion as an undo of previous consensus content, followed by three reverts to user's preferred version, totalling four. However, on the policy clause quoted, user may also be blocked even if this constitutes only three reverts. Further, I warned user informally prior to Orangemike's template warning. My first report; please advise if this is not a block on either ground ("4 reverts" or "clearly disruptive"), thanks. User clearly is not new and is aware of 3RR policy, and user's protests about 3RR on Talk:Ron Paul may or may not be indicative of intent to come just up to the line without crossing it.

The new text "squarely in the second tier" appears in each of the four reverts, and "'surprisingly strong'" was reverted in all four.

Clearly edit warring. Blocked for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rividian reported by User:Simonxag (Result: Warned both editors)

  • Previous version reverted to: [117]
Closing. User:Simonxag and User:Rividian will both be blocked if they continue to edit war. I left the appropriate warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:YMB29 reported by Kermanshahi (talk) (result: Stale)

  1. 14:35, 5 May 2008
  2. 01:43, 6 May 2008
  3. 10:50, 6 May 2008
  4. 14:08, 6 May 2008
  5. 14:51, 6 May 2008
  • Diff of warning: here

-Kermanshahi (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

--

Kermanshahi did it four times also: 17:45, 5 May 2008, 11:25, 6 May 2008, 11:29, 6 May 2008, 14:28, 6 May 2008

He also called me a vandal and keeps on putting unverified statistics and details into many articles concerning war aviation to satisfy his personal bias. I mean just look at this article, which he defends from edits.

-YMB29 (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Stale.. The last revert was on 6 May. If the two main editors still disagree as to what sources are usable, I suggest that you ask for advice at WT:MILHIST. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:San anjelo & User:124.217.41.50 reported by User:Tiggerjay (Result: semiprotected)

By IP Sockpuppet

By San angelo

  • semi-protected for the duration of the AFD. I'm not seeing compelling evidence that this is a sock and its clearly a new user anyway so they get some leeway. Spartaz Humbug! 09:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • looks great, should resolve the problems. :) Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mrshaba reported by User:199.125.109.57 (Result: Stale)

Their response was "I am familiar with the rules of style and the 3RR rule." Apparently not. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • events documented were over a day ago. Reopen this if the edit warring resumes and we can take this into account then. I'll leave a warning. Spartaz Humbug! 09:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
As Mrshaba is an SPA with no regard for other considerations I can pretty much guarantee that this will resume. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Knowhands enjoykeep reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 48 hours )


User:Knowhands enjoykeep has previously been reported for a 3RR breach on this article[118] and was subsequently blocked for 24 hours.[119] Shortly after the block ended he reverted to his pre-block version of the article.[120] Since then he has reverted twice more. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Muscovite99 reported by User:Cfeet77 (Result: Stale. )

This user has been already blocked once for violating 3RR (diff).

In the quoted reverts he constantly re-inserts the same biographic material about a living person that other editors considered poorly sourced, defamatory and dubious as per talk page. Cfeet77 (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Stale. ScarianCall me Pat! 11:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Muscovite99 reported by User:Krawndawg (Result: 48 hour block)

  • Diff of 3RR warning: I warned this user two days ago for 3rr here and he was just reported by another user. This user has also been blocked before for 3rr:(diff).

This user is continually removing well sourced statistics (from the associated press), violating WP:V by saying that they're "wrong" because he doesn't understand how economics work. This user also continually accuses good faith editors of "vandalizing" pages, even though he's been warned about that, and is more often than not uncivil in discussion, making derogatory comments towards editors. Krawndawg (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And he continues to remove an entire section from the article for the 3rd time without consensus, and calls its data "wrong" as well when everything is clearly and reliably sourced. Krawndawg (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Looks like he's done this before. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Krawndawg reported by User:Biophys (Result: Stale. )

  • Previous version reverted to: [121]

Please pay attention at the segment that begins from "During his eight years in office, the economy bounced back from crisis seeing nominal GDP increase six-fold..." in first reverts.

This user conducts RR warring simultaneously with many users. He reported about RR violations by two other users at this noticeboard (see above; both blocked). He conducted RR war with both of them.Biophys (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That one is just about stale. Please report again if the user(s) persists (Do not revert again, please). ScarianCall me Pat! 21:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not really understand this. He reported two other users, and they were blocked. He violated 3RR rule himself, and there is no action. He has been previously blocked and repeatedly warned about RR warring at his talk page, although he deleted all the warnings from the talk page.Biophys (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Many of those reverts by the way are in accordance to WP:V. A user was trying to remove statistical information because he claimed it was wrong, even though it was clearly and reliably sourced. He was blocked, I restored the correct version, then Biophys continued the edit war. Krawndawg (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:87.80.128.218 reported by User:Daytona2 (Result: Protected. )


Despite discussion and concensus on the talk page, editor refuses to accept Wikipedia:NOT#CENSORED. Similar revert wars with varying participants have been occurring for at least the last year. Editor has launched a personal attack on me [122] which I would like dealt with. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Essentially it's stale. But I have prot'd the article anyway. Can't remember for how long though... :-S ScarianCall me Pat! 22:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:98.197.207.69 reported by User:WLU (Result: Stale. )

  • Previous version reverted to: 19:01, May 9, 2008 - variations, always reverting to provide the statement that Moby has used the alias Pippy Baliunas
Stale; report again please if anything else happens in the future. ScarianCall me Pat! 06:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aee1980 reported by User:Kafka Liz (Result: 72 hours )


Single-purpose account repeatedly removes sourced information about an ethnic minority in a Greek town. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. This editor has been warring on the same point (wishing to exclude the city's Turkish name from the lead) since March 22. Discussion on Talk shows there is a balanced way of handling such mentions that's used in several parallel articles, but this editor will have none of it. His point gains no support on Talk, but he keeps on reverting regardless, month after month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zodiiak reported by User:bender235 (Result: Warned both editors )


No violation of 3RR, only 3 reverts have been made. Tiptoety talk 17:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:WWGB reported by User:LahoreKid (Result: Stale. )

I already warned him days ago on his talk page, but he decided to ignore the warnings and continued to vandalize the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LahoreKid (talk • contribs) 18:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: 00:47


1) It's stale. 2) It's not vandalism; it's clearly a content dispute. ScarianCall me Pat! 19:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Happyme22 (Result:Reporter warned)

User:Happyme22 has violated WP:3RR at Ronald Reagan. Also, he appears to have some serious WP:OWN issues. Below are the particular entries at the article that violate 3RR.

  • 00:25, 11 May 2008
  • 23:04, 10 May 2008
  • 19:33, 10 May 2008
  • 19:11, 10 May 2008

Cryptographic hash (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that some of the reverts made by User:Happyme22 reverted content added by a blocked/sock abusing user, not really sure 3RR has been violated here. Tiptoety talk 02:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Also, this appears to be somewhat of a revenge posting, given the reporting users prior interactions with Happyme22 over the Jeremiah Wright article... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: User:Cryptographic hash has been warned for disruptive editing. Tiptoety talk 03:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Palomaris reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 72 hours)

Both User:Palomaris and User:222.105.69.68 (the same editor) are Single-purpose accounts repeatedly removing sourced, vetted, established text from Food irradiation and replacing it with copy-and-paste text taken from www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/Irradfact.cfm WHAT'S WRONG WITH FOOD IRRADIATION (revised 2001). When taken together, the two user accounts add up to four reverts in one day.

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Both Palomaris and the IP. A strange pattern of POV editing, edit-warring to insert direct copyvio material from an external web site. This behavior is getting close to needing an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:AnotherObserver reported by User:Boooooom (Result:no action)



There is a threat to keep reverting here 07:39, 11 May 2008

Comment: There are only three reverts, and it takes four reverts to violate the three-revert rule. The warning comes after all of the reverts and also after the threat to continue reverting. I've added times (in italics) and a valid previous version reverted to to the above and placed a welcome template on AnotherObserver's talk page since the user has only 10 edits. If further reverts happen, you can add them to this report. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No compelling reason to take action, per Coppertwig. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Space Cadet reported by User:Matthead (Result: 72 hour block. )

The user was added to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren on 12:21, 28 January 2008 and is thus under Arbcom edit restriction. He was blocked since:

  • 23:38, 3 March 2008 Moreschi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Space Cadet (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Violation of civility supervision)

Now to the suspected 3RR violation:

Previous versions reverted to had both been edited by User:Molobo who is called "my brother" by Space Cadet:

Technically it was 5 minutes over the 24h limit. This might be considered Wikipedia:Gaming the system, especially since the user was blocked for 3RR for his 7th time only weeks ago on April 20:

  • 04:58, 20 April 2008 EdJohnston (Talk | contribs) blocked "Space Cadet (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring: 3RR on Christoph Hartknoch. This editor is under an Arbcom restriction)
Done. Blocked for 72 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Sennen goroshi (Result: 24 hours)


I did try to warn the editor initially in a polite and non threatening manner, merely pointing out that he was way over the 3RR limit. On the second warning I suggested that he might want to self-revert, and that I would give him the opportunity to self-revert before I made a 3RR report.

He responded to my 2nd message, but did not self-revert.

This is a well established editor, who is well aware of the 3RR, it wasn't a simple 4th edit without noticing, it was 6 reverts, and even when the editor was made aware of the number of reverts and the fact that it was in breach of 3RR, they did not take the opportunity to self-revert.

This is not a simple tit for tat edit war, the above editor has been reverting the edits of a number of other editors.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said in each of my edit summaries, each one was an attempt to get people to wait at least until after the 2008 UEFA Champions League Final before writing a summary of the 2007-08 season. Not an unreasonable request, I don't think. I have now left the paragraph in the article in question, but I have rewritten it to make it more conducive to expansion after next Wednesday's match. As for the edit where I was "given the opportunity to self-revert", I explained my reasoning for not reverting that edit on User:Sennen goroshi's talk page. The issue is one of grammar, where my version has been the accepted version for the last few months with no objections. Now, let's leave this whole silly business behind us and carry on with our lives. – PeeJay 19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
What you were reverting were not acts of vandalism, but differences of opinion. The fact that more than one editor wanted to include those details, might have told you that the talk page should be used, rather than constant reverts. The grammar you talk about is not the accepted version on many articles, and yet again, when you have to make six reverts in a 24 hour period, then perhaps the talk page is the best place for these things.
Either way, you made six reverts in a 24 hour period, they were not reverting vandalism, you were aware of the 3RR, and even when given ample time to self-revert, you did not. Need I say anymore? Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The grammar issue has been discussed on the talk page of that article several times. Anyway, I've made my position perfectly clear. If you still find my edit process that offensive, then so be it. – PeeJay 19:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tariqsaeed007 reported by User:Misaq Rabab (Result: no action)


User:Tariqsaeed007 warned twice on his [page] by Misaq Rabab

(This is my first report so sorry for any mistakes) Misaq Rabab (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your "previous version reverted to" is the same as the "3rd revert", and actually comes after the first two reverts. In any case, there are no 4 reverts, which constitutes a violation of 3rr rule. The admin may be interested in protecting the page, considering that both parties are engaged in revert-warring.Bless sins (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I have already requested page protection from MBisanz at 14:50, 11 May 2008 who protected the page earlier. Misaq Rabab (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Since you are both revert warring and neither has made 4 reverts - no action Spartaz Humbug! 06:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Greg_L reported by User:Wittiams (Result: no action)

  • This editor is yet another sockpuppet of User:NotSarenne, who is also known as “217.87…”, who has been extraordinarily disruptive on Talk:MOSNUM and has continually harassed User:Fnagaton. See also User_talk:Zzuuzz#MOSNUM. It is not a violation of 3RR to revert a sockpuppet. This is a classic stunt of NotSarenne (creating a new account just to work on this one issue) and I ask that User:Wittiams be blocked indefinitely. Greg L (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Looks like a prima facie violation and check Greg_l's contribs for a charming edit summary. Since there is an RFC for the page I have invited them to comment here. If there is nothing helpful please can any passing admin feel free to consider a block. Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • After a million edit conflicts I'm probably too pissed off to consider this fairly. Can someone else look at this? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 21:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Excuse me. I am unclear. What are you pissed off about. Am I now allowed to ignore a 3RR rule for sockpuppets? Greg L (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


      • Pissed off with the interface not you. Don't worry. I'm not going to block anyone when I have steam coming out of my ears. Thanks for the explanation, I agree that reverting a banned user is not a violation of the 3RR. If they are being a pest I can understand the testy edit summary. My badly phrased comment concerned the reporter - whether they should be blocked as a sock.. That's what I'm leaving to someone else because grumpy admins (i.e. me) have no right to block anyone until they calm down. I'm away for some tea and a lay down. Spartaz Humbug! 21:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
((The above comment entailed even more edit conflicts. Gah! Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No worries (any more). Thanks. I alerted Zzuuzz (here), who has recent dealings with NotSarenne/“217.87…”. I learned why remaing calm in edit summaries is so important. Admins have so little time to judge what is going on and people like 217.87 know how to game the system. He’s driven Fnagaton nearly mad and I never understood why Fnagaton bothered to respond in these forums. I now see that you either let the little bastard get away with his vandalism games, or you revert them at every turn and have to respond when he comes here. Quite interesting. Greg L (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The reporter has been blocked by me as a sockpuppet of a banned user, and it is clear that this was clear to Greg L at the time of the reverts. I have marked this report as no action taken. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:210.50.85.249, User:210.50.89.121 reported by User:C S (Result:semi-protected )

  • Previous version reverted to: [123]


After the 5th revert, I warned the anonymous IP 210.50.85.249

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [129]

Now a 6th revert by a nearby IP using the exact same language in edit summary: [130]

  • Since the anon user can change ips I simply semi-protected the article for a week. Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:T-1000 reported by SchmuckyTheCat (talk) (Result: 48 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [131]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [136]
  • second offence so longer block. Spartaz Humbug! 06:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: no violation)


There are not 4 reversions above, and if you look at the edit history, it shows User:Poeticbent instigating an edit war, reverting demonstrably false claims, and reverting offensive claims regarding Jews in Poland. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from manipulating facts. You have been warned repeatedly against your POV crusade today after you engaged in edit war deleting my contributions and using offensive summaries. --Poeticbent talk 19:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No violation. #1 & #2 are sequential and count as one revert. Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Our policy clearly states:
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.
Reverts #1 & #2 were about different parts of my well balanced single contribution, each time. They were independent of each other. --Poeticbent talk 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:All Hallow's Wraith reported by User:emerson7 (Result: Stale/No vio )

  • Previous version reverted to: [137]


over a period of several weeks this user has engaged in warring by systematically reverting my edits on dozens and dozens of other articles with little or no effort discuss. --emerson7 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that makes it 3 reverts, not 4 (for the 4th, User:emerson7 provided the odd url of "http://DIFFS DIFFTIME"). As for this "edit war", the nexus of this dispute is contained in User:emerson7's post to the administrator's noticeboard in April, my reply to it, and that of others, all of which are contained here. Previous discussion about this dispute was going on between me and emerson7, and is archived here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Stale. No violation either. But don't game the system User: All Hallow's Wraith. ScarianCall me Pat! 00:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nat reported by User:GreenJoe (Result:no action)

  • Previous version reverted to: [142]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [146]

He only reverted 3 times, but he's an admin and should know better. GreenJoe 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm gonna need a better reason than "he should know better" to block someone for three reverts, especially when his opponent in the dispute has reverted one fewer than that. Suggest heading for dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No offense, but DR doesn't work. He's an admin, yet he reverted 3 times. He really should know better. He failed to use the talk page too. GreenJoe 00:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Every time I give a source which clearly backs my edits, he reverts. I understand that both sides are responsible for their actions in an edit war, and I accept my responsibility in this edit war, however, If you can see, I have given (1) a reasonable rationale each time, (2) provided a source for my edits, (3) the second one was not a full revert as I have provided a citation for my edit. nat.utoronto 00:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Good, then block yourself. GreenJoe 00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
To make myself clear, if no action is taken on this, I'll leave Wikipedia for good. GreenJoe 00:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocking someone "because they should know better" strikes me as nothing if not punitive. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Along with the fact that 3RR has not really been violated seeing as he did not revert more than three times. Tiptoety talk 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The notice itself says you can be blocked even if you don't revert 4 times. Of course it's punitive, that's the point of 3RR. GreenJoe 00:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No, the point of 3RR is to prevent edit wars. All blocking at Wikipedia is supposed to preventative rather than punitive. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Red4tribe reported by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: blocked two weeks)

User has just come off a week-long block for 3RR violations and pleas from several editors to stop adding self-made maps at Dutch Empire using his own interpretation of sources, usually consisting of self published websites, and is now at it again at Italian Empire.

Reversions were done prior to any engagement on the talk page. 17:26, 13 May 2008

Note that this is not a technical violation of 3RR, more of a breach "in spirit". As he pays no attention to my requests [147], even if a block is not forthcoming, a stern warning should be given on his talk page, where incidentally his previous warnings were deleted [148]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In defense of myself, every time I attempt to reason with the one above me, he becomes completley ignorant, saying whatever reference I post is undreliable. The same has come with this new map. I reverted 2 times, not 3. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
For the second time, after a revert report on this page, Red4tribe has resorted to sockpuppetry to get his maps on WP. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Red4tribe The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware that forgeting to log into your account when attempting to make a quick edit=sockpuppet. Very interesting, so if I forget to log into my account, as I'm sure many others have, they are breaking the rules and thefore should be blocked. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
Blocked for two weeks - the accidental logout explanation doesn't fly given the timing and was looked upon quite harshly by me. east.718 at 03:19, May 14, 2008

[edit] User:Badagnani reported by User:Navnløs (Result: 72 and 48 hour blocks )

  • Previous version reverted to: [149]


I left a message on both the metalhead and heavy metal fashion articles a while back saying I was going to eventually delete most everything in those articles, because they were both full of original research with perhaps one source each. I proceeded to do this only to have User:badagnani continually revert me and not seem to understand the situation. At first he would not respond to my numerous warnings and comments. Eventually he did respond and we conversed on my talk page and his. He broke 3RR on both pages. He seems to think deleting information like that is unhelpful to readers who may want to know some information about the subject. I told him that didn't matter and that we can't let people read misionformation either but he didn't seem to get it. I told him I deleted the information I did per WP:OR as it was all original research and that by reverting me he was also violating WP:V. It doesn't matter what "truth" is. If it can't be verified and reliably sourced then it shouldn't be there. I would also like t point out that both of those article were filled with blatant information and the article seemed like they were written by children who had no idea what they were talking about. He refused to back down, though. He has at least improved heavy metal fashion to some degree with some sources but I would kindly ask for a block as he does not seem to understand wikipedia rules and refuses to understand them even after I cited WP:OR and WP:V which he was in gross violation of. I wouldn't mind if someone would tell him why he was wron, too, so he understand as he didn't seem to believe me or care. Either reason is dangerous. He needs to understand how wikipedia works. We don't go ahead and leave articles in bad condition so readers can read and try to improve them later. It's the other way around. We can't let readers read such misinformation and need to verify things with reliabel sources before they appear for readers to see. It seems he has it all backwards and his attitude is dangerous to wikipedia. He would leave horrible and inaccurate articles up just so readers could get a "feel" for the subject or something inane like that. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Navnlos for 72 hours for breaking WP:3RR and I have also blocked Badagnani for 48 hours for edit warring. Bad. did not specifically have 4 reverts, but was still edit warring. ScarianCall me Pat! 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:The Rogue Penguin reported by User:Muramasa_itachi (Result: 48h for both)

He's being completely ignorant of the source I'm giving him, claiming it doesn't exist, then goes on to cite original research as a means to trump my argument. He refused to participate in the discussion at the talk page after a while rather childishly. Check the talk page for more. Admittedly, I'm edit warring with him by responding to his reverts, but I'm willing to take whatever punishment is involved with that to have this resolved. Also, understand that I'm offering valid sources, and support of a third opinion, in backing my edits while he has nothing but his own interpretation of a scene to back his. StardustDragon 00:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked 48 hours for edit warring and various disruptive tactics. east.718 at 03:07, May 14, 2008

[edit] User:Panel_2008 reported by User:Buffer v2 (Result: 48 hour block )

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 06:00, April 18, 2008 + also warned in the comment section of the history page by 221.114.141.220 + countless of others in his talk page - fully aware of the rules.

Also note that this user is connected to a much larger ongoing problem - to keep it short - edit warring on Central Europe has been going on for months - Panel_2008 is a major party. After weeks of edit warring, consensus was reached with Proposal II. He violated consensus and continued edit warring (the only party to do so - the only problem). This led to mediation - see here where the mediator ruled with the majority, and warned Panel_2008 of his actions, and the consequences of it. He has ignored those warnings, and is continuing in the edit warring which leads us here. The mediator as a neutral party has avoided filling out any reports, but has recommended to the rest to fill out AIN or 3RR reports. Also, he not only vandalizes pages by ignoring consensus, and through edit warring, but he also attacks other users - as seen in the mediation, and the discussion page of Central Europe.

Panel 2008 and 221.114.141.220 blocked, EconomistBR warned. east.718 at 05:40, May 14, 2008

[edit] User:KrytenKoro reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: Stale. )


User is plainly uncivil, claims my good faith edits are vandalism, and makes personal attacks while edit warring on the Link page in spite of the discussion there. He goes as far as accusing me of wiki-lawyering and does not listen to my advice on the talk page or in my edit summaries directed to him. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User hasn't reverted since early this morning, ergo, it's stale. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, he has violated the 3RR within a 24-hour time period and this policy agrees with me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree that this is stale. 13 hours, especially when the edit warring user's revision is the top revision (thus giving no need to revert, and making the thirteen hours rather meaningless) is not long enough to be considered stale. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, both of you, blocking is used as a preventative measure to protect the encyclopaedia. It is not used as a "punishment". Please be aware of that. If the user hasn't reverted that article for 13 hours then it's stale. Thanks. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Scarian here. However, if either user were to resume revert-warring on this article in the near future, I would be inclined to block (or endorse such) regardless of whether the 3-revert limit is technically exceeded. CIreland (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Three-revert rule does not, in any way, suggest that "if the user hasn't reverted that article for 13 hours then it's stale". I would like to hear a better arguement than this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No one is going to argue with you because you're trying to fight against common sense. Arguing over the spelling of a Japanese word, on the other hand, isn't something to be proud of. Case closed. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment ... note that Sess (the accuser) has himself made 4 reverts in a 24 hour period on that same article (I tried to help him with a gentle warning but he removed this from his talk page saying he had "acknowledged them") ... also note the weight of reasoning from KrytenKoro compared to that from Sess ... also note the apparent expertise from K versus S ... note also the baiting and accusing tone from Sess almost from the beginning. Technicalities aside, there is only one guilty party here and it is not User:KrytenKoro. Abtract (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Stale. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Scarian and Stifle on the disposition of this case. The only other reasonable option would have been to block both parties, which you probably would not do over a single accent mark. See WP:LAME. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:98.221.171.223 (aka User:Cosprings?) reported by User:216.185.5.254 (Result: Article protected. )

This user is continually undoing the improved grammar, spelling, style, and facts to make a point that actually takes away from the article, as you can read in the edit summaries. Whoever it is, he or she refuses to take the matter up privately. I feel that his or her editing or reverting improved Wikipedia articles is not the right outlet.

Protected for 1 week. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it seems the user logged in under his normal name and just reverted it again. If you look at what's being undone, he is taking out all the improvements, primarily because he seems to disagree with the inclusion of just one fact due to it being quoted on a blog. His edit warring continues, just under another name. 216.185.5.254 (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. Please use the report example at the bottom of this page to provide complete diffs.
See above. 216.185.5.254 (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Duck You reported by User:AgnosticPreachersKid (Result: 24 hours)


[edit] User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Buspar (Result: Protected)

  • Previous version reverted to: [155]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [160]

Note that according to the block log for this editor, this constitutes the fourth time Folken de Fanel has violated 3RR. Buspar (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Indeed it does. However, I think that both of you contributed equally to the edit war. Buspar has three reverts in 10 hours and four reverts in 29, while Folken de Fanel has three reverts in 9 hours and 4 in 16. I'm inclined to block both of you for edit warring but I suspect the block would be overturned as Buspar has technically not violated 3RR, so I'll protect the page instead. Page protected. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to vandalism. I've reverted copyright vandalism from Buspar. This user had previously been warned various times about violations of the Copyright and External Links policies.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The reverts were most assuredly not vandalism, and violations of WP:EL are not (yet) on the growing list of 3RR exemptions. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Koavf reported by User:A_Jalil (Result: 48 hours)



[edit] User:The TriZ reported by User:Chaldean (Result: Protected)

Now, see, that is a lie, we have not agreed to call the language Assyrian, sure there is Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, but in this case, the word "Neshre" is not Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, it is Syriac and if you want to call it something else, then call it Turoyo, cause the word is used in Turoyo to. And the reverts were provocated by Chaldean. He reverted the article himself twice and his friend twice to. Obviously he "tricked" me to fall in the trap so he could report me. Whatever the decision may be, I will understand it cause i broke the rule. Though I just don't like the methods used by Chaldean and his friend in this case. The TriZ (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, see, that is a lie, we have not agreed to call the language Assyrian - See Assyrian language page. It does exist. Chaldean (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Point is? The word "Neshre" is Turoyo and Syriac. Why redicret it to Assyrian Language then? It's just a disambiguation page. There aren't really any language with the name Assyrian. The only language with Assyrian is the Modern Eastern Syriac, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. And the word isn't Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. The TriZ (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss. You could've done this in the talk page of Zelge Fans, but you opted to revert rathern then discuss. For the record, Syriac Language is also known as Assyrian language, but its known more as Syriac language in English. Just like how Assyrian genocide is the term more widely used in the English language rather then "Syriac genocide." Chaldean (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Now your really off-topic. I've only tried to explain my reverts, and that you and user:WestAssyrian co-worked with eachother by reverting the article twice each. Using such methods in wikipedia, I personally believe shouldn't be accepted either. The TriZ (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You yourself has reverted the article three times and so has your friend user:WestAssyrian. I said twice before, but that was wrong. The TriZ (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandelism multiple times is ok. Please read the rules. Chaldean (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The TriZ has not reverted since his 3RR warning. Let's wait a few hours to be sure the reverting has stopped. I do encourage TriZ to join the Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read them?

"reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself."

And it wasn't vandelism. Also you should read WP:DIS. The TriZ (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes you should read WPDIS, your edit was nothing more then disruptive. How did it improve the article? Your goal was simple - the provoke, and you suceeded. Chaldean (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My motive was to correct what was wrong, and it improved the article in a way that the user would feel less confused. We can also discuss your motives. Read the rules, just because i reverted it 4 times and you and your friend 3 times each, doesn't say that much. Why couldn't you accept Syriac language instead of Assyrian language? The TriZ (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Page protected. Please take your discussions to the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Ecoleetage (Result: No violation)

  • Previous version reverted to: 22:09, 14 May 2008 [161] The editor in question has repeatedly deleted referenced text, despite requests to cooperate with the other editors involved in this article's expansion.


  • I genuinely want to work with my fellow editors on improving and expanding this article. But this editor has repeatedly deleted relevant text (including properly referenced text) simply because he doesn't like it (check the history of the article for his comment "Sorry, this is not good enough"). Thank you for your input and assistance in this matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Ecoleetage, there's still a lot of unanswered questions at Talk:Pontius Pilate's wife. Lack of sources (or their dubious nature) for the sections I removed has been established there. If there's no improvement regarding the sources, the dubiously referenced and unreferenced material has to go. The material can always be put back when the sources can be provided. Until that time, discuss on talk, but don't just dunk back in the article what has just been removed for not confirming to WP:V --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No violation - a violation occurs when four reverts are made within a 24-hour period. I suggest discussing it with the involved users on the talk page. --B (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Yaf (Result: 100h for both)




Three prior repeat 3RR violations on this same article, formerly titled Right to bear arms, now titled Right to arms. Yaf (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Both have been edit-warring with each other extensively; blocked for 100 hours. east.718 at 00:07, May 16, 2008

[edit] User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Ecoleetage (Result: protected)

  • Previous version reverted to: 22:09, 14 May 2008 [165] The editor in question has repeatedly deleted referenced text, despite requests to cooperate with the other editors involved in this article's expansion.


  • I am resubmitting this complaint, with two new reverts from today via the editor in questions. This editor's behavior has gone beyond disruptive. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Article protected for a short while to hopefully allow constructive discussion to foster. east.718 at 00:11, May 16, 2008

[edit] User:Bluegoblin7 reported by User:Trees Rock (Result:no violation)


My reasons are all in my edit sumamries. I did mention a WP:3O. I think this is nonsense, as the redirect itself has been csd'd. Also, as they are shortcuts, should they not be short? The one that Trees Rock (or is it Save the humans or iwilleditu?!?! I'm confused.) added that I reverted was longer than all the current ones, and it is a little used shorcut - see Special:PrefixIndex/WPP:. Thanks, BG7 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
One WPP: Is a accepted shortcut. Second Your Shortcuts WP:WPS and WP:SWP are more uncommon. Third That comment you made about my username is uncalled for and is a personal attack. Trees Rock Plant A Tree! 21:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Forth of all I Have Just noticed WP:WPS don't redirect to the wikiproject. Trees Rock Plant A Tree! 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
5th of all when did you mention WP:3O. Trees Rock Plant A Tree! 21:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No violation. It takes four reverts to violate 3RR. Neither editor has made more than three. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait I Found Another one. [175] Trees Rock Plant A Tree! 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No violation. The first revert was on the 12th. 3RR violations occur in a 24-hour period. Metros (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fdgdf3 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Already blocked 24 hours)

I suspect that Fdgdf3 is a sockpuppet of Knowhands enjoykeep, who has previously been blocked twice for 3RR breaches and once for edit warring using his IP address in the past week. A checkuser has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Knowhands enjoykeep. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked. 24 hours by User:AlistairMcMillan. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Knowhands enjoykeep. The question remaining is whether the block on Fdgdf3 should be extended due to the apparent sockpuppetry. Knowhands is already blocked indefinitely after multiple 3RR violations. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Commodore Sloat reported by User:Kelly (Result:24 hours)

  • Previous version reverted to: [176]


Whilst not by the book a 3RR violation, CS was clearly gaming that by reverting 5 times in 25 hours. Therefore I've blocked him for 24 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:71.234.162.94 reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: Already blocked )


  • The reverts are over whether two characters are main or supporting. I think sockpuppetry may be involved, since different IPs are doing the same reversion. Btw, first time I've reported something here, so apologies if I've done anything incorrectly. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked. Both editors complained about are already blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bobisbob reported by User:DeadlyAssassin (Result: No violation)

  • Previous version reverted to: [187]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [194]

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of this article regarding this image. User Bobisbob is edit warring to replace the main image with one of what is described in the image description as his own erect penis. The discussion is around whether that image or one of a diagram is more appropriate at for this part of the article. The argument is NOT one of censorship, but rather which image is most appropriate for this article at this point. It may also be interesting to note that Bobisbob was in favour of a diagram before his own image was uploaded[195].

  • No violation - reverts were outside of the 24 hour fence. --B (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kopter reported by User:Hertz1888 (Result: No violation here, blocked for 3RR on Philadelphia)

  • Previous version reverted to: [196]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [201]
  • This editor has reverted the same edit 4 times since 15 May, disregarding two editors' warnings and invitations for discussion. Repeatedly substitutes a drab photo of Boston at night for one we two deem more appealing and appropriate. Not 3 reversions in 24 hours, but definitely a pattern of non-cooperation and disruption that is very frustrating, and degrades the article. Similar pattern of behavior observed on other articles. Would appreciate your help! Hertz1888 (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No violation here, but I'm blocking for 3RR on Philadelphia. --B (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ophois reported by User:Carcharoth (Result: blocked for 48 hours)

  • Notes: - 71.234.162.94 has already been blocked for 3RR over this, for 24 hours from 00:12, 18 May 2008, by User:C.Fred, who carried out one of the other reverts in the same edit war, see here. Note left for C.Fred here (where it should be noted that Ophois left this note at 22:43, 17 May 2008). It might also be worth looking at these two diffs by User:Bcute12: [202] and [203]. Talk page discussion (since December 2007) is here (permalink to discussion, as of 23:27, 17 May 2008). There was also a previous edit war in January 2008. See the page history for the latest edit war. The edit war from 17-18 May 2008 can be seen here. Note that I became aware of this when reviewing User talk:71.234.162.94, and left the following note here, indicating that I was filing a report here. I wrote the report, warned User:Ophois, then saved the report. Carcharoth (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kjngjkn reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Already blocked indef as a sock )

I suspect that Kjngjkn is a sockpuppet of Knowhands enjoykeep, who has blocked indefinitely for multiple 3RR breaches and blocked once for edit warring using his IP address in the past week. A checkuser has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Knowhands enjoykeep and the SSP report is at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Knowhands enjoykeep. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: User has now been blocked as a sockpuppet[204] so I'm not sure whether I should self-revert this report or leave the report for historical purposes. Notification that the user has been blocked seems the least I should do. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked. Indef by User:Blueboy96 as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Duhman0009 reported by User:Dancter (Result: User warned again )

(modifying article to express, "The game is scheduled for release May 21, 2008 in North America.")


Warned. It's been about 6 hours since the last revert, so I don't feel that blocking is necessary right now. I've left the user one more note. Hopefully he refrains. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:BigDunc reported by User:GDD1000 (Result:No action taken )

I don't really know how to fill this in, I'm just struggling with trying to cope with the vandalism this user BigDunc is doing at my sand box. He's deleting images which I've asked for assistance on because I don't know how to fill in the copyright syntax properly. I need help.GDD1000 (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: 2007


  • Diff of 3RR warning: 2040
I am enforcing copyright policy with regard to Fair use images in userspace. I have asked him several times not to restore the images per WP:NONFREE and he's just kept on edit warring. My edits are exempt from 3RR. - User:BigDunc
It should be noted that Dunc has been warned about civility already today.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that I have already asked for assistance on the copyright page. I don't know how to do the syntax and have made errors. You are also conveniently (it would appear) forgetting to tell admins that you are locked into a long and bitter edit war against me at Ulster Defence Regiment since the day I joined Wikipedia as a member.GDD1000 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As an admin, I decided to take no action with this. I cautioned both parties on the ANI. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)