Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Germen (talk | contribs) at 16:35, 2 September 2006 (→Detailed refutation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:Gabi S. reported by User:Bertilvidet (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Ze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gabi_S. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: Bertilvidet 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments: I have not warned the user about the 3RR. However, this edit makes it clear that they are familiar with the rule. Bertilvidet 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Barefact reported by User:Ali doostzadeh (Result:24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Template:Scythians[Scythians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians]. Barefact (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    The user barefact has been warned about 3RR rule and understands it well (see the warning in his user page where he understands it well and the rule is mentioned and he was warned by the administrator) and yet he continues to revert this article to push his POV.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scythia&action=history

    • 1st revert: [4] 21:05, 28 August 2006
    • 2nd revert: [5] 22:12, 28 August
    • 3rd revert: [6] 23:59, 28 August 2006
    • 4th revert: [7] 14:20, 29 August 2006
    • 5th revert: [8] 15:42, 29 August 2006
    • 6th revert: [9] 17:04, 29 August 2006

    Time report made: 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

    Also the user is making false allegations and claiming three other different people as my sockpuppet! See here: [10] This is not the first time the user has tried to manipulate and game the system. --alidoostzadeh 01:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also some other users have commented on his disrputive behavior here: [11]. --alidoostzadeh 02:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.66.203.21 reported by User:DuoDeathscyther 02 (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Dennis Stamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Lex Luger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.66.203.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Dennis Stamp:

    Lex Luger:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User was blocked for 72 hours for vandalism. That makes this sort of moot. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Editor 1 reported by User:Nat Krause(Talk!) (Result: 4 days)

    Three revert rule violation on Chinese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Editor_1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 19:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

    • I have blocked the user for 4 days per WP:3RR. Block calculated as follows: 24 Hours (3RR Violation) + 72 hours (removal of 3RR report/personal attacks). This block is being made without regard to the sockpuppet allegation, which I was unable to find in WP:ANI. I'd welcome other admins to revisit this decision if interested. alphaChimp laudare 03:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:131.156.238.75 reported by User:Ckessler (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Aerosmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 131.156.238.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User continues to add statement attributed to non-reliable sources, despite a suggestion to read WP:RS and being warned about 3RR.

    User:69.170.35.211 reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Eurasian (mixed ancestry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.170.35.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    User:DonIncognito reported by User:DonIncognitoCar Pix (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on {{Article|Image:1999 Pontiac Sunfire.jpg}. DonIncognito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 02:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User vandalized the photo, then kept re-uploading the same version after it was reverted to the original.

    Objection to my editing of image being called vandalism. The image in question is that of an automobile, intended to illustrate an automobile article. I had cropped the image in order to better frame the automobile, as the surroundings were irrelevant to the subject at hand. User:Car Pix seemed to be miffed that I edited his image and reverted my edit, while at the same time calling me a vandal on my talk page. I submit that my edits to the image improved the image for its purposes on Wikipedia. I also suggest that User:Car Pix better familiarize himself with the definitions of "vandalism" and "public domain." DonIncognito 17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, Car Pix's objection came several months after my first edit of the image. Prior to his objection (which was probably based on his poorly conceived assumption that no one Wikipedia has the right to edit his images) there was absolutely no problems whatsoever with my edit of the image. Car Pix is reverting the image to a poorer state, and therefore I submit that it is he who is in fact violating the 3RR rule. DonIncognito 17:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shyhiloguy31 reported by User:Grendel (Result:no block)

    Three revert rule violation on Ex-gay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shyhiloguy31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User has been warned:

    Time report made: 08:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Vandal is participating in a reversion war to push a personal agenda.

    two days old, no edits to that page since the 28th. no block. --heah 15:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Burak18 reported by User:Ugur Basak (Result:48 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Galatasaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Burak18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Note that his 3RR rule block just expired today, and he again started revertwarring. Above you can see his other 3rr notice. --Ugur Basak 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    48 hours for second vio in as many days. --heah 19:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Liftarn reported by User:Mantanmoreland (Result:6 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : Not applicable -- user previously blocked for 3RR [22]


    Time report made: 18:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Revert warring in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. User has been previously blocked 24 hrs for 3RR just three weeks ago, so a longer than 24-hour block is warranted.

    User was blocked for 3rr one year and 3 weeks ago, but not three weeks ago. Liftarn seems to beleive that he is editing in good faith according to WP:BLP policy, which states that removing libelous content from a blp article does not count for 3rr, so just 6 hours for now, and maybe we can work this out on Liftarn's talk page??--heah 19:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, got the date wrong. It's been talked to death on the talk page already. I think the BLP tag is being inappropriately used as a cover for reverts in a content dispute.--Mantanmoreland 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vezaso reported by User:ChrisO (Result:12 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vezaso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 19:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User had already been warned for 3RR but continued reverting regardless through the course of today.

    12 hours for first offense. --heah 19:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ohnoitsjamie reported by User:TheTruth2 (Result:No block)

    Three revert rule violation on User talk:TheTruth2 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:TheTruth2|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    • 05:34, 29 August 2006 TheTruth2


    Time report made: 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • This is a frivolous report by a previously just-blocked user against an admin who reverted the user's talk page after the removal of legitimate warnings. This user was warned several times but persisted anyway. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With all respect, could you please fix the mangled sections of code in this report so we can see what you're talking about? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Summaries for the above links, with the presumed permission of admins and the parties involved:
    1. Not a revert.
    2, 3, 4, 6. The reverts in question, which were preceded by obvious warnings.
    5. Not a revert.
    7. Again, not a revert.
    At worst, Ohnoitsjamie went one over while restoring warnings being removed by a user who had not been blocked for even a day before deleting them. Also in his defense (yes, it's a he, not a she), I feel this is a clear case of wikilawyering revenge in lieu of learning from mistakes. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pentb reported by User:The hobgoblin (Result:24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Mulatto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pentb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : Not applicable. But user previously blocked for 3RR


    Time report made: 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User previously blocked for 3RR 01:22, 19 July 2006

    Blocked by me again, 24 hours Jaranda wat's sup 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CJGB reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result: 24hrs)

    Three revert rule violation on William_A._Dembski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CJGB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 21:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Shravak reported by User:999 (Talk) (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on Dattatreya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shravak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 22:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Daniel575 reported by User:Meshulam (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Neturei_Karta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Daniel575 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [23]

    And User:Meshulam:

    • Previous version reverted to: [28]
    • 1st revert: [29]
    • 2nd revert: [30]
    • 3rd revert: [31]
    • 4th revert: [32]

    Time report made: 23:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I don't know whether this is relevant, but his comments in the Edit Summary of each revert got more and more hostile, culminating with him telling me that I "should perish instantly for [my] wicked deeds."

    User:Evv reported by User:User:Dardanv

    Three revert rule violation on Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Evv

    As i said on your talk page, you are going to have to provide diffs so we can examine whether or not this user has, indeed, broken 3rr. thanks.--heah 00:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yepre reported by User:Aran|heru|nar (Result: 24hrs)

    Three revert rule violation on Chinese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yepre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) : User:Yepre is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Edipedia, along with User:Editor 1 (both accounts are blocked now for 3RR, vandalism and personal attacks), and User:Epedia. Edipedia has been blocked four times for 3RR, and his sockpuppet Editor 1 one time. For more information on Edipedia see here and here. Edipedia has been warned and blocked for 3RR various times, so I see no need to warn all his sockpuppets again. Thanks.


    Time report made: 02:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:KojiDude and User:TJ Spyke reported by User:Ned Scott (Result:24h)

    Three revert rule violation on Bebi (Dragon Ball GT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KojiDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Too many reverts to list, there are currently over 100, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bebi_%28Dragon_Ball_GT%29&limit=100&action=history

    Time report made: 08:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I'm not involved, but became aware of this situation when they commented on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Apparently this has been going on for the last day or so, involving a dispute about whether or not a character is canon to a larger story line in a work of fiction. -- Ned Scott 08:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm following WP:IAR here. I also didn't report the vandal on here when he broke 3RR because I consider him a friend, and I don't want him to get blocked. If the page can be protected, all I need is a little time and I'm sure can reach a compramise with him. However, if you are going to block us, only block me. TJ Spyke is a good contributor, and is just trying too hard to maintain policy. There is no reason to block him for trying to improve Wikipedia. --KojiDude 08:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please block Indian Martial arts

    I am in a disagreement with user Template:Freedom skies over the article

    as to the veracity of his claims on the history and the cause of the downfall... i have placed disputed tags on the article to state that this article is in dispute... user reverts my disputed tags... I have tried to edit the article to lend my viewpoint without erasing his edits... user has removed my edits... Please lock the article with a disputed tag on it...Kennethtennyson 21:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please inquire at Requests for page protection. If you believe there is a violation of the 3RR rule, please reformat your request properly. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Synthe reported by User:deeceevoice (Result: 24h)

    [[WP:3RR}Three revert rule]] violation on

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

    User:Synthe has deleted wholesale a block of text to which he/she objects without providing any substantive reason, other than that he/she disagrees with what it states. I provided an additional source and repeatedly have remonstrated with him/her on the talk page. They are not a new user, and I've warned him/her twice regarding the 3RR. This count is since the addition of another source only, given that, to be fair, the user may have felt that there was insufficient documentation for the text. Further, the user repeatedly has refused to sign his/her posts in the discussion -- an exchange which has been totally useless, because Synthe still refuses to be rational, responding with barely intelligible comments and acusatory or abusive language such as, "djinns aren't africans, hey reverned deeceevoice stop doing this, if your a black supremist and i suggest you stop" and "you sound like one of those idiots who cry on what you "THINK" is racism...." (FYI, I was totally unfamiliar with Mr. Popo and did not write the original text regarding racism, but simply added information regarding the cultural context of the phenomenon and another source.) The edit notes accompanying Synthe's repeated blanking of text are either nonexistent or purely argumentative, rather than substantive.

    I warned the Synthe repreatedly about his/her behavior and explained several times that it was in violation of Wiki policy. And I provided a link to Wikipedia:3RR.[40] Synthe never responded, indicating seemingly a willful disregard of the policy. Further, a check of Synthe's block history indicates similar obtuse, disruptive behavior in the past involving altering other people's posts, profanity and copyright violations. Finally, Synthe has been a registered editor under the same name since December 31, 2005. It is virtually impossible that he/she would ahve been unaware of the 3RR rule -- even without my repeated warnings and the provided link. deeceevoice 20:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Next time, please follow the standard 3RR format; that is, one which includes the warning from the outset. Also, your link above failed to reveal this, I had to look for it myself, it was here. Thanks. User blocked for 24 hours. El_C 20:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. I had the right link the first time and cut and pasted it in -- but guess what? It was blanked because I'm blocked from editing in my AOL web browser by the umpty-ump collateral damage block of the freaking day. Annoying as hell!!!! I'm crunching a deadline and thought I'd selected the same diff in my Internet Explorer window -- but obviously not. Thanks. deeceevoice 20:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. AoL = annoying as hell! :) El_C 21:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.168.108.195 reported by User:Bobblehead (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    United States House elections, 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.168.108.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The user does not appear to understand that content that you do not agree with is not vandalism and thus removal of the information is not exempt from 3RR. This is shown by the user's comments here. So even if a block is not in order, a warning regarding the removal of the content not meeting preventing vandalism would be great. --Bobblehead 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zello reported by User:PANONIAN 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

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


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:I disagree that I broke the 3RR. We were in the middle of a content dispute where my well sourced contribution was deleted by Panonian 3 times. After that an anonymous user appeared from the nowhere with 0 edit history and deleted the disputed section. There were only 2 possibilites for me: 1, a new vandal appeared or 2, Panonian are using a sockpuppet to evade the 3RR. I hoped that only a vandal a not the later so I reverted. The anonymous user didn't communicated on the talk page where the dispute was going. Zello 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, the anonymous user was not a vandal (the content dispute is not a vandalism). He did not agreed with your edits to the article, so he reverted you, and you reverted back, so you broke 3rr. Second, the anonymous user was not my sockpuppet (you can check my IP adress, I have a statical one), but anyway he is somebody whom I know and who edit Wikipedia from time to time. Interestingly, another anonymous IP appeared that reverted article to last version by Zello: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ba%C4%8D&diff=73129685&oldid=73129095 Anyway, the fact is that Zello violated 3rr, and that he should be blocked for 24 hours. PANONIAN (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Calling a friend from IRC who hasn't got any user name and edit history IS evading the 3RR from your side. He wasn't another independent wikipedia user. Zello 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ps. Also I ask a Checkuser about that anonymous user who appeared after that incident, because I would like to prove that he is not my sockpuppet. Zello 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I did not called him. As I said, he edit Wikipedia, and had a registered nick (I cannot say who he is, he forbid that to me), and we both hang on irc chat too. He also watch my Wiki contributions (like you do, by the way), so he saw that I have a problems with "certain user" and became involved in whole story. That however does not change the fact that you reverted four times. PANONIAN (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why he didn't used his user name then? An anon who deletes a sourced section without any comment and 0 edit history is only a vandal. And 3RR is not applied to vandalism. Zello 00:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Greater Hungarian nationalist propaganda that you want to impose here is certainly not "sourced section". Besides, you did not reverted his second edit where he removed entire section (which I proposed on the talk page by the way), but you reverted his first edit that was only content dispute. As for why he didn't used his user name, let say that he has his reasons (he do not want to be seen involved in such content disputes), but as I say, I cannot reveal his identity even if that mean that you will not be blocked for 3rr. :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't present here your accusations about the dispute itself because that's not the right place. You can call it anything, it was relevant info backed by two reliable sources. Zello 01:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, but is it claim that "it was relevant info backed by two reliable sources" an example of talking about the dispute itself? :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And by the way, Zello, this is clearly your sockpuppet (he also reverted my edit in Árpád dynasty article, how interesting): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=195.56.12.45 PANONIAN (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed, I'm not able to do anything with him, he followed my contribs. I already asked for Checkuser here. Your "friend" appeared also under a new nick... Zello 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't have to watch your contribs because we disputed about the same question on the talk page of another article. After I found sources in that dispute I decided to add this new information to the town-article.

    User:Deepthroat123 reported by User:Mmx1 (Result:24 hour block)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Jesse Macbeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Deepthroat123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Whoops; posted the template but didn't include the brackets and it wasn't corrected until 19:13. However, I'd like to note that the user is a suspected sock of User:Jessefriend (I reported the sock), and between User:Jessefriend, User:Deepthroat123, and the IP User:66.11.160.31, have made the revert over 12 times in the last 24 hours[41] - with no discussion. Sockpuppetry case at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jessefriend.


    Time report made: 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Jessefriend reported by User:Mmx1 (Result:Blocked indefinitely as vandalism only account.)

    Three revert rule violation on

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


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 01:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Justforasecond reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result:48 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Jews for Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Justforasecond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 01:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The user misunderstands WP:VANDAL after numerous warnings by others. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    While the warning above came after the 4th revert, user has been blocked 4 times previously[42] for 3rr, once for a month, so its 48 hours. --heah 05:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mathslover reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result:8hour block)

    Three revert rule violation on

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


    • Previous version reverted to: 22:44, 22 August 2006 (Mathslover introduces WP:BLP-infringing statement re. Perelman, that is: a potentially offensive claim without source)
    • 1st revert: 05:28, 1 September 2006 (again, differently worded and in another place but basically the same BLP-infringing statement on Perelman)
    • 2nd revert: 07:07, 1 September 2006 (again, different wording and different place. This time using a pseudo-source, that is: the source does not confirm what Mathslover contends it says regarding lack of value of Perelman's work)
    • 3rd revert: 07:37, 1 September 2006 (similar to previous, but more disturbing to page layout)
    • 4th revert: 11:38, 1 September 2006 (similar to first revert, that is without sources and intertwined in text)

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 12:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked for 8 hours for first violation. --Robdurbar 17:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Halbared reported by User:HamishMacBeth (Result:8hour block)

    Three revert rule violation on

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


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: user has a few warnings on his talk page about breaking the 3RR, but I believe this is his first report. HamishMacBeth 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah - first violation so an 8 hour warning block. --Robdurbar 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sparcusmarcus reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result:12 hrs)

    Three revert rule violation on

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



    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Kizzuwatna reported by User:Khosrow II (Result: 12 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

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


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user is trying to put his interpretation of a quote into the article. He doesnt seem to understand that POV is not acceptable on Wikipedia.Khosrow II 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:132.241.246.111 on George_Felix_Allen

    George_Felix_Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 132.241.246.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Comments

    Suspected sock puppet. Repeatedly warned on POV, possible vandalism and personal attacks.

    Time report made: 23:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    what personal attacks? 132.241.246.111 02:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs out of order, but not clear that "first" is a revert William M. Connolley 10:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ParadoxTom reported by User:Kevin Breitenstein (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Jews for Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ParadoxTom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 02:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Pretty clear cut. After being 3RR warned by User:Humus sapiens, their next revert was "RV from Humus Sapiens who broke 3RR before I did; review talk page.".

    The first one may be a partial revert, as it removed the {{noncompliant}} tag from the article, but I'd rather err on the safe side, there are 4 nearly full reversions there anyways. Kevin_b_er 02:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    8h William M. Connolley 10:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Davkal reported by User:Askolnick (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on

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


    02:33, 2 September 2006]


    Note: Davkal's 5th reversion was made after I posted a notice on his talk page [47] and on the CSICOP talk page[48] that he was already in violation of [WP:3RR] His response was to post a warning on my talk page[49] charging me with harrassment and other misconduct and he then made his 5th reversion within 24 hours. Askolnick 04:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 10:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:74.33.0.16 reported by User:Nandesuka (Result: 3h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Xbox 360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.33.0.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Content dispute over whether a laundry list of games should be on the Xbox 360 page.

    Time report made: 04:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    3h first offence William M. Connolley 10:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yepre reported by User:Aran|heru|nar (Result: protected)

    Three revert rule violation on

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


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 09:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This is Yepre's second violation of 3RR. Yepre is a suspected sockpuppet of Edipedia, currently blocked for 5th violation of 3RR, incivility, vandalism, blanking, etc. Aran|heru|nar 09:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Currently protected William M. Connolley 10:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Germen editing as User: 81.58.29.91. Reported by User:SlimVirgin. (Result:)

    3RR on Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Germen (talk · contribs) editing as 81.58.29.91 (talk · contribs) See Comments section below for evidence that it's Germen.

    • 1st edit 11:37 September 1 (removed that Islamophobia is a concept and inserted in the first sentence that it's a "disputed neologism"; added POV tag)
    • 1st revert 15:38 September 1 (straightforward revert to his previous version)
    • 2nd revert 11:06 September 2 (reverted to POV tag and "disputed neologism"; added citation to Robert Spencer to the intro)
    • 3rd revert 11:21 September 2 (straightforward revert to his previous version)
    • 4th revert 11:37 September 2 (straightforward revert to his previous version)
    • 5th revert 11:53 September 2 (restored POV tag and re-added Robert Spencer to lead)
    • 6th revert 12:02 September 2 (restored POV tag and changed phenomenon to "alleged phenomenon" in the lead; restored Robert Spencer)
    • 7th revert 12:48 September 2 (restored POV tag; restored "alleged phenomenon"; restored Robert Spencer)

    Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

    I left a warning, thinking this was a new anon, but then learned it was user:Germen editing again for the first time since he was blocked for a month in April by Dmcdevit for sockpuppetry and block evasion. [50] He's been blocked several times before for 3RR, including on this article. Here is Germen leaving a post on his talk page from the same IP range. [51] SlimVirgin (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because of my low opinion of Wikipedia maintenance of rules, I decided to edit as an anonymous account. I did not revert, but re-inserted information which was deleted by this controversial administrator, whose controversial administration and editing patterns have drawn considerable interest (at least three forum threads) at wikipediareview.com (which I do not believe to be an attack site, but a necessary addendum to the Wikipedia community). Several attempts from my side to discuss the matter were ignored. The textual changes I made were not identical to the previous versions, so they do not qualify as a revert. Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not revert, just tried to cooperatively add and improve information. There is an editing conflict, so the POV tag is justified. So according to my knowledge I did not violate 3RR. Any attempts to negotiate a solution of the conflict with her failed, see the talk page of the Talk:Islamophobia article. I would like she heeds the worries of several people at e.g. wikipediareview.com and changes her administrative pattern. Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 15:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Detailed refutation

    • As an administrator, SlimVirgin should be aware that in the case of an editing conflict the POV tag is in place.
    • She should be aware as well that reverts are to be used mainly in order to stop vandalism. Adding an important critic of the Islamophobia concept (Robert Spencer, a bestselling author whose book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades ranked at #14 of Amazon sales at a certain point) and adding a much-needed POV label cannot be qualified as vandalism, hence reverting was inappropriate, see WP:3RR.
    • My attempts to discuss the differences in opinion with her failed, even so resulting in deleting entries in her guest book.
    • Her tendency to resort to reverting instead of working out differences in a way compatible to good Wikiquette is a genuine source of concern, not only for me but also for several other users.

    Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 16:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CltFn reported by User:BhaiSaab talk (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 16:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: All are at least partial reverts. He was also reported here with no review of the report done. User has been blocked previously for 3rr violations. BhaiSaab talk 16:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Copy-paste-edit this for a new report

    ===[[User:VIOLATOR_USERNAME]] reported by User:~~~ (Result:)===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on 

{{Article|PROBLEM ARTICLE/PAGE NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}: 

<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]
<!-- Use this for simple reverts. For more complex reverts, please include information 
about which previous versions are being reverted to. -->
* 1st revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 2nd revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 3rd revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 4th revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* [http://WarningDiff DiffTime]


Time report made: ~~~~~

'''Comments:'''
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=73418292"