Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
TheMadTim (talk | contribs)
243 edits
TKK2 (talk | contribs)
131 edits
Line 981: Line 981:


'''Comment''': If this is the position, both should be blocked. --[[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]] 14:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
'''Comment''': If this is the position, both should be blocked. --[[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]] 14:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
⚫
:'''Comment''' [[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]], please check out the page history here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graeme_Dott&action=history]. You can see for yourself that KarateKid7 is lying again, as they did in the previous 3RR nomination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:KarateKid7]. I've only made 3 edits to the page. KarateKid7 is a persistant liar and vandal, and attempts to create confusion by falsely labelling my own contributions as vandalism. --[[User:TheMadTim|TheMadTim]] 14:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': I obviously disagree as I was reverting vandalism by [[User:TheMadTim|TheMadTim]]. --[[User:KarateKid7|KarateKid7]] 14:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': I obviously disagree as I was reverting vandalism by [[User:TheMadTim|TheMadTim]]. --[[User:KarateKid7|KarateKid7]] 14:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

⚫
:'''Comment''' [[User:Bhadani|Bhadani]], please check out the page history here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graeme_Dott&action=history]. You can see for yourself that KarateKid7 is lying again, as they did in the previous 3RR nomination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:KarateKid7]. I've only made 3 edits to the page. KarateKid7 is a persistant liar and vandal, and attempts to create confusion by falsely labelling my own contributions as vandalism. --[[User:TheMadTim|TheMadTim]] 14:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' Strange I can count 5 edits by you in the last 24 hours, all relating to you wanting proof that Graeme Dott supports [[Rangers F.C]] even though it was clearly in the external links. [[User:KarateKid7|KarateKid7]] 14:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


== Report new violation ==
== Report new violation ==

Revision as of 14:45, 2 May 2006

    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

    User:infinity0

    Three revert rule violation on Socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). infinity0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: -- Vision Thing -- 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Comments: 4th revert happened 24 hours and 55 minutes after first revert, but this user already broke 3RR 3 times (1 2 3) in last 3 months and I think he delayed last revert on purpose to avoid breaking 3RR technically. -- Vision Thing -- 19:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vision Thing seems to have a thing against me. In my defence, I did NOT violate 3RR, and Vision Thing's (spam) edits were reverted by other users too. -- infinity0 19:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Infinity0: it is best to show diffs containing the reverts Vision Thing did -- your response will have more weight in you handle it this way. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, here are Vision Thing's insertion and reinsertion of links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. -- infinity0 20:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gephart

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

    Reported by: Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

      • I dont exactly know if users have the option to defend themselves or were they would do it, so I, Gephart, will do it right here (if this is not the place, please direct to the appropriate area or let me know i have not chance). Although i have been using wikipedia for a little under a year, i can honestly say i never knew about the 3RR (i know for the future). I guess i have never had any trouble with other users up until today. Calgacus continued to revert what i had done without being willing to discuss the picture in question. And, as i noticed above, he posted another 3RR violation, stating "the persons unwillingness to discuss," so i know he can imagine the frustration i was feeling. I posted twice on the article talk page and once on his user page, but got no direct answer to the simple questions i asked him; he continually beat around the bush to put it. I know i violated policy is "declaring an edit war" in my last post, put that simply came out of frustration, and my intents were never genuine. Anyways, that is my side of the story.--Gephart 00:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this edit to your own user page is quite ridiculous, shocking and disgraceful, containing falsehoods such as "Calgacus will start a mini-revert war" (actually, you, as you admit here, started it), "he intentionally ignores talk pages" (I actually responded to all your comments all the talk page) and slander "cause you to violate the 3RR rule" (you yourself did this), "intentionally" (who could you know?). I reported you here because I like to edit articles and concentrate on content, so I report all 3RRs I come across. The latter edit has discredited your attempt to convince of your own good faith. I remind you to consult WP:Assume good faith, and very much hope you don't need a block to reform your character. Thanks. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JedRothwell

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

    Reported by: KillerChihuahua?!? 14:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Note that this is the second time that Jed has gone over 3RR and he was again warned before his 4th revert: [7]. JoshuaZ 15:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h. Note that I have some history over this article, though it was a long time ago, so feel free to review this block if required William M. Connolley 15:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.144.93.38

    Three revert rule violation on April 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.144.93.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [8]
    • 1st revert: [9]
    • 2nd revert: [10]
    • 3th revert: [11]
    • 4th revert: [12]
    • 5th revert: [13]

    Reported by: Asbl 15:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: 5th revert came after I put a warning on the anon's talk page.

    8h. Sorry I forgot to note that earlier William M. Connolley 22:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Manojlo

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
    • 1st revert: [14]
    • 2nd revert: [15]
    • 3rd revert: [16]
    • 4th revert:[17]
    • 5th revert: [18]
    • 6th revert: [19]


    Reported by: Ilir pz 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: If looked at Special:Contributions/Manojlo user continues to revert continuously, hiding behind the claim that "minor parts" are edited, and misleads with the Comments, but in fact he is trying to impose his POV. I put several test warnings to him, but he just kept removing them from his talk page. Action is appreciated. Thank you, Ilir pz 19:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GODDESSY

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

    Comment 1-3 were the same reversion, 4 was removal of deletion tag, 5 was a partial reversion back to original version. Pretty basic edit war.--Isotope23 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps off topic, but the user seems to have WP:OWN issues about the article.--Isotope23 21:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    24h, for 3RR and self-biog William M. Connolley 21:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:207.81.122.3

    Three revert rule violation on Squamish, British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.81.122.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: TeaDrinker 00:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This seems to all be one user, but a very persistant one. He has been doing these reverts for months. He has been warned on multiple accounts previously (note that he removes warnings from talk pages), and uses many accounts.

    User:Al-Andalus

    Three revert rule violation on Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Demographics of Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Al-Andalus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: OneEuropeanHeart 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My and other users reverts were in responce to those reverts done by the user now reporting this 3RR. For a background to this please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RVs at Argentina and Demographics of Argentina and relevant Talk:. Al-Andalus 20:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: User has been warned four times [36] [37] [38] [39] by three different users, refusing to discuss the issue or change his behavior. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 20:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:211.225.70.220

    Three revert rule violation on Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 211.225.70.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Endroit 12:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This user keeps reverting against consensus, to variations of East Sea (instead of Sea of Japan). A warning has been placed on the user page after the 6th revert.--Endroit 13:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to have got bored and gone off. Warned. William M. Connolley 19:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Greier

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

    Reported by: Telex 13:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    But User:Greier is one more time challanged by you Telex. You don't speak with him on talk page first. You just report him here. --Steaua 18:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not my job to babysit him - how many users is that ludicrous propaganda of his being reverted by? He knows he oughtn't continue reverting, but he does it anyway. Quite evidently (from his user talk page), many users have tried to speak with him, alas, in vain. Telex 18:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen you try to talk with Greier...--Steaua 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen you just reverting his work. If you complain of something go to the talk page first. This is Wikipedia...--Steaua 18:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit summary - after my hard work was called bullshit, he hurt my feelings. Telex 18:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, unless you're Node I don't see why you're so upset and why your feelings are hurted. That's really bulshit what you have written there. That work deserve immediatelly reverted. --Steaua 18:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    In fact, Telex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was also on Administrator's noticeboard [43] warned not to revert and to make compromise on talk page first. --Steaua 13:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Steaua for support. I know Romanians on wikipedia are on a constant... let`s call it stress, from a combined pack of Greeks, Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Hungarians, Ukrainians.... They all have theyr own (apparentelly contrasting) ideas on what Romanian/Aromanian/Vlach people mean, from where Romanian/Aromanians/Vlach camed from, on what Romanians/"Vlach" language means... About your propose to block me... haa hahahaha hahah haaaa haha... Greier 18:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    2006-04-28 18:54:09 Mikkalai blocked "Greier (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR acc. to report) which seems fair enough William M. Connolley 18:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    A russian coallition of force...russian blocking, just fine...--Steaua 19:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:137.186.145.102

    Three revert rule violation on User talk:137.186.145.102. 137.186.145.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    [48]

    Reported by: File:CcoacrestB.PNG Ardenn 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: He violates etiquette about the talk page. File:CcoacrestB.PNG Ardenn 16:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Getting into edit wars on peoples own talk pages is unproductive and offensive. William M. Connolley 18:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. I've already spoken with Ardenn about how ridiculous it is to consider as vandalism a user's removal of his obviously too large signature from their talk page (the image in Ardenn's current signature is much smaller that the one he left on the talk page in question), as he left a message about vandalism over this issue prior to this report of a 3RR violation. I am absolutely certain that Ardenn understands that what he is arguing over is exceedingly unimportant, and yet he insists on making an issue out of it.  OZLAWYER  talk  20:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DevoutOne

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


    Reported by: Dominick (TALK) 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Looks like this account was created only to insert links to Pope Benedict XVI in the article. I posted on talk, he replied with a template. May be a sockpuppet.

    Of the pope? :-))) In that case, only 1h for now as a gentle reminder that the rules can be enforced William M. Connolley 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

    Three revert rule violation on Persian Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: —Khoikhoi 23:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    The only previous time I was blocked the admin apoligized later [49]. In this case however I will admit I broke the 3RR as I forgot I rv a couple of times yesterday and could not revert myself as I had already been reverted. I apoligize.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No action now. Warned. `'mikka (t) 01:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:154.20.148.186

    Three revert rule violation on Werner_Herzog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 154.20.148.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Stephan Schulz 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 48h. `'mikka (t) 01:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:


    User:Daveinaustin

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

    Reported by: AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • User is repeatedly adding POV to the article and removing legitimate text, though he refuses to cite sources (not that that's relevant when investigating 3RR)
    • His submissions have been reverted by three separate editors.
    • User has been sufficiently warned, yet refuses to stop.
    Are these really reverts? They look like insertions of different POV text William M. Connolley 08:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just about to say the same thing. Ami, can you show where he has reverted to text you had deleted, or repeatedly inserted something? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I suppose I can't. I've only reverted one of his edits, and then one of the article's main contributors (of which I'm not) asked me to do something about him as he had refused to stop inserting POV into the article. Looking at the history it seemed to be 3RR, so I listed him here. I guess I should have looked more closely. He seems to have either given up now or gone to bed, so I guess there's no reason to take any action. If the problem persists, hopefully they'll open up an RfC--I was just trying to find a quick and temporary solution to a problem that I shouldn't have gotten involved with in the first place. Sorry for taking your time. AmiDaniel (Talk) 18:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gene Nygaard

    3RR violation on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    Gene Nygaard has reverted my archiving of the talk page four times in 90 minutes, part of a pattern of disruption from him that has been going on there for days. He has been editing for some time and is familiar with the 3RR policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Um. It looks like no-one (including me) wants to step into your edit war with GN. You both know whats-what. You (both) shouldn't be edit warring over archiving a talk page. For what its worth, my preference is to archive, unless people object, in which case it can be left for a week or a month or whatever William M. Connolley 22:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    William, are you saying it's okay for him to violate 3RR because it's a talk page? If so, he'll simply keep on doing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you feel downright silly for having said that, then being blocked yourself for the same thing? Gene Nygaard 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Violating 3RR to scuttle the archiving of a page is not just lame, but disruptive. There's no legitimate excuse. Blocked for 24 hr for the 3RR vio. Any further disruption when the block expires will earn him another 24. FeloniousMonk 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like SV has also violated 3RR (see below) and in this case seems to have archived discussion less than a day old. Given my experience of her removing comment she doesn't like, I am, unfortunately, not surprised. We should expect evenhandedness in applying 3RR. In fact I'll go further and say admins who violate policy should be dealt with more firmly than ordinary users. Mccready 05:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you actually read WP:CIVIL yourself, Jayjg? Why are you going off on a personal attact on an editor who is not even a subject of a notice of 3RR violation, engaging in namecalling and in an ad hominem argument unrelated to anything that editor has said here? Gene Nygaard 03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry Jay, I don't well know that at all. In any case her comments below appear to be a mea culpa. I don't suppose you'd consider apologising to me? May I remind you to be civil and not make illogical accusations? Mccready 06:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Her self-block goes above and beyond the call of duty, and just serves to highlight her acute sense of responsibility, justice and fairplay. I'd recommend not putting words in her mouth, especially considering the amount you have been harassing her. I don't suppose you'd consider desiting from your continued violations of WP:CIVIL? Jayjg (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jidan

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

    Reported by: ManiF 12:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: User:Jidan has been previously blocked for 3RR, on three occasions during the last six weeks. --ManiF 12:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    They aren't all reverts. Prodego talk 14:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mean to intrude, but there is a theoretical 3RR violation (depending on how nitpicky the admin wants to be). If you check all diffs, you'll notice that he's removed the link Persians at least five times (so we have four reverts). According to the policy, partial reverts count as well. Telex 14:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are six reverts there. As per WP:3RR, not all the reverts have to be the same, any undoing of another editor's work counts as a revert. --ManiF 14:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's three straight forward reverts, and then two more edits to accomplish the same thing (change to an ethnicity of Arab). Looks like a straight forward attempt at wikilawyering to me, and he should know better.

    Wikibofh(talk) 14:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hogeye

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

    Reported by: -- infinity0 17:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This is the user's first group of edits since being banned for a month for personal attacks and disruptive editing.

    There's eight now (not counting the sockpuppet edit mentioned below); for easy viewing: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. The user also made other changes to the article that were reverted, but those ones were all around the same things. Four of the reversions to his edits were by myself, and I'd rather avoid making any more. Sarge Baldy 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There's another one by an anon which is most likely Hogeye at [59]. Fightindaman 20:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, OK, this is getting silly. Errm... 48h? William M. Connolley 22:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wolfkeeper

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

    Reported by: Dionyseus 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: I attemped mediation so that someone can explain to him why you cannot include unsourced and unfounded claims in the article, and for a full day the Elo_rating_system article was at peace, but apparently he has become restless because he began reverting my edits again, and worse he calls my edits vandalism, displaying lack of faith on me as an editor WP: Assume Good Faith. Dionyseus 03:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Furthermore he is now posting on my userpage, calling me names and insulting me, and deleted my earlier attempts to mediate with him on his userpage. Dionyseus 06:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    12h for first offence William M. Connolley 07:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Metb82

    Three revert rule violation on Abdullah Öcalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Metb82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Reported by: —Khoikhoi 03:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Blocked for 48 hours. --InShaneee 00:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lemuel Gulliver

    Three revert rule violation on 2003 invasion of Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lemuel_Gulliver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Merecat 05:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: These editor is clearly aware of what he is doing. His edit summaries state:

    • "Such an assertion needs to be made in the body of the text, attributed and explained. Not stated so baldly"
    • "This is another way it could be done"
    • "Attributed version. The simplest solution is not to include it"
    • "Quotes alone is another option"
    • He was warned on his talk page here as well as with edit summary which stated:

    "rv / v Gulliver - You have reverted this 3 times already. The last 2 times were vandalism. Stop now or face 3RR and vandal report"

    Here are the real diffs: revert 1, partial revert 1, attempted compromise 1, attempted compromise 2, attempted compromise 3. At that point I left the article for others to worry about. Incidentally, I don't actually like those compromises. As I argued, I believe it is best to make such a controversial assertion ("part of the War on Terrorism") in the body of the text, where it can be attributed and explained.
    It is also worth noting that Merecat is refusing to enter discussion on the matter, by deleting comments on his talk page. He has also misused vandalism templates and been warned for it. He has also reverted the article three times and risks breaking the 3RR. — Gulliver ✉ 05:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Gulliver's knowledge of procedure is sufficient that he knew enough to come looking for this page. With such knowledge, he's certain to know that the place to dialog is the article talk page, not by leaving insults on my talk page. Please review the article talk page see that Gulliver is part of a small group of POV warriors, determined to delete this category from the article. Merecat 05:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Part of a small group of POV warriors"? Please keep conspiracy paranoia off this page. I happened across the article, noticed unattributed POV, and tried to remedy it in various ways. — Gulliver ✉ 06:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, how about "one of a number of POV reverters"? Merecat 06:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "A Wikipedian implementing NPOV policy as usual" is fine. In any case, there is no 3RR violation, and so I won't entertain you further by engaging you in unnecessary debate. The admins who manage this page have better things to read. — Gulliver ✉ 06:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:SlimVirgin

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

    WP should be about even-handedness not sysops supporting each other without adequate research.

    Reported by: Mccready 05:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Jay am I wrong that she arhived the page 4 times within 24 hours? I don't understand what you mean by saying she reverted herself. I'm always happy to learn. Mccready 06:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I hadn't reverted four times when I reported Gene Nygaard. After he was blocked (or around the same time; I forget the sequence exactly), I went back to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and I restored the archiving that Gene had reverted, without realizing that I was still within the 24 hour period. As soon as I realized, I reverted myself. Normally, that's enough to avoid a block for 3RR. However, as an admin, I should have been more careful, and as someone who had just reported someone else for 3RR, I should have been more careful still, so I'm going to block myself now for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears noble Slim and I assume good faith, but to make it more lifelike would you agree that Gene should be able to nominate (at any time within the next 30 days) a time for you to go offline for 24 hours from the time of his nomination? Mccready 07:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL! Jayjg (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, what a solution Mcready, I can obviously see how it relates to your complaint.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's keep this in perspective. SV was trying to archive a talk page that contained nothing more than fruitless and disruptive agitation from a chronic malcontent. Gene Nygaard's opposition to the archiving was nothing more than insisting on yet further disruption. SV was in the right to archive and Gene Nygaard was in the wrong to repeatedly revert it. In responding to Gene Nygaard's unwarranted reversions, SV's actions did not rise to the level of a block for 3RR, while Gene's certainly did. I'm fine with SV being unblocked, but not with Gene Nygaard. FeloniousMonk 15:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nice to see your selective indignation at work, FeloniousMonk! What happened to "Violating 3RR to scuttle the archiving of a page is not just lame, but disruptive"?
    Note also that SlimVirgin also has a history of using "archiving" of active discussion as a pretext for stifling talk page discussion. This isn't the first time she's pulled that out of her bag of tricks, nor the first time edit-war about it. It should surprise no one when such actions are not submissively acceded to. See, e.g., Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 1 and the corresponding talk page edits on those dates. Gene Nygaard 02:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nice to see your selective indignation at work. Let's see: selective: "[T]ending to select; characterized by careful choice; "an exceptionally quick and selective reader"- John Mason Brown. [C]haracterized by very careful or fastidious selection; "the school was very selective in its admissions" Seems appropriate. --Calton | Talk 02:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the only one who found SlimVirgin's actions offensive. See Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Why are 3 day old comments from active discussions in the talk archive?, and note that the originator of that section was often on the opposite side of the discussion from me. Gene Nygaard 02:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea I don't understand why she blocked herself in the first place.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Always have to throw in an attempt to show that you are the boss here, don't you, SV?
    I notice that, unlike the sysop who blocked me, the one who blocked you gave you an opportunity to offer an explanation here first.
    In a more sensible world, some other sysop would tack on an additional 24 hours for conduct unbecoming a sysop, in presuming to act as a judge in your own case.
    Curiously, your self-reversion of your own fourth revert not only came a rather long 4 h 26 minutes after that reversion, but also and more tellingly, only after I had pointed out to User:FeloniousMonk by email (because he was the one who blocked me, and because I therefore could not post it here) that you had also violated 3RR. Any connection? FM never bothered to reply to me; looks mighty suspicious about him contacting you, however, and that being the real reason behind your 5th revert in 24 hours being a self-revert. Gene Nygaard 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please unblock Slim? Blocks are not punishments and it's clear that she understands what she did wrong and one would hope will try not to do it again. It is strangely difficult though, one notes, to do the right thing when Gene Nygaard is involved. Why is that, I wonder? Grace Note 02:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect that SlimVirgin took the unusual step of acting as a judge in her own case was to make it less likely that someone would be damn fool enough to do that, and expose an inherent unfairness in the way sysops treat other sysops in this process. Gene Nygaard 03:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that you are not familiar with this policy or this one. I don't see any need to indulge you further until you are well acquainted with both. -- Grace Note.
    Huh? If there is any "good faith" issue here, that possibility is giving her every benefit of the doubt. Any other explanation I could think of to try to explain acting as a judge in her own case would involve an improper abuse of power. Gene Nygaard 04:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it would help if I were more to the point. I think it would be a good thing if that is what she had in mind. I'm not assuming bad faith; that would be a good reason. You might take me to task about speculating about something I don't know for sure, but a lecture on assuming good faith is out of place. Gene Nygaard 14:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally if a person reverts four times in error and self-reverts their fourth revert, it isn't judged as a 3rr vio - after all, the point of the rule is preventative, not punitive. I would read the matter in the same way whether it was an established editor I liked, or a newcomer I didn't care for much. Guettarda 05:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    She self-reverted after she was caught. In fact, there was so much elapsed time that had she added something rather than deleting it, what she'd added would have been ripe for archiving by her standards. That Jayjg undid her self-reversion within minutes also hints that that may have been preplanned too, before she self-reverted. Gene Nygaard 09:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole situation seems kind of sad, really. I will add that if Slim is that determined to revert you, I'd think long and hard about what I am changing :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 10:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unlike the sysop who blocked me, the sysop who blocked SlimVirgin afforded her an opportunity to offer an explanation here before being blocked.

    That favoritism is part of the procedural issue here. Gene Nygaard 13:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What? The "E-mail this user" link on your browser is busted? The {{Unblock}} tag doesn't work on your talk page? Man, you'd better ask at the Village Pump, see if anyone can help you with those tehnical issues. --Calton | Talk 13:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you mention it, one thing that is broken about the "E-mail this user" feature is that it doesn't provide a copy to the originator, nor any other log that the E-mail were sent, so that even if someone were inclined to deal with rampant speculation such as yours, whether or not the evidence could be produced would be at the whim of the recipient.
    Furthermore, SlimVirgin's blocking sysop gave her an opportunity to respond here, on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, not just on her own talk page. Gene Nygaard 13:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ...rampant speculation' You're right, when you said you were unable to comment, I assumed you were actually serious instead of making stuff up. My mistake. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just my two cents: With due regards to all participants, I would like to add that we make a lot of fuss even about obvious matters. She did something which she believed to be in order, and immediately upon realizing the matter, she set the “house’ in order. Bringing the matter here is prima facie fine, but seeing the discussion above I remember these words: “a codified set of rules on an issue, so they can subvert the spirit while adhering to the letter.” (Rule number 18, Section: Laws by others on this page. In my opinion, SV had done nothing wrong to warrant a report here. --Bhadani 10:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lemuel Gulliver

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

    Reported by: anon Comments:

    Sorry, but it has to be more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. In this case, only 3 of the reverts are. —Khoikhoi 06:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You wouldn't happen to be a sockpuppet, would you? Two false accusations of 3RR violation in such a short space of time! As Khoikhoi correctly notes, the first revert was not within 24 hours (it was a fortnight ago!). The edit marked as the fourth revert was an attempt at compromise. Two reverts do not a 3RR violation make. Please do not flood this page with bogus reports. — Gulliver ✉ 06:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Gnetwerker

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

    Reported by: Wzhao553 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User continues to insert two poorly referenced sections ("Popular terminology" and "Academic terminology") and to relabel another section on Origins as my personal essay on Origins. Other editors have called for the deleted sections to go, e.g.:

    If the claim that "Postcolonialists and Neomarxists have argued that the alleged commodity fetishism of Asians arises in a similar manner." can't be cited, the whole section needs to go. Gazpacho 17:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried to explain my edits several times, explaining why the referenced "Origins" section should replace the "Popular terminology" and "Academic terminology" sections, but user refuses to listen, accusing me of promoting a personal agenda. The extreme irony in this situation is that I was the one who wrote 75% of the two unsourced sections, and now I want to replace my own unsourced work with sourced work. The relevant discussion can be found here:

    Talk:Asian_fetish#Original_Research_in_this_article

    User also has a history of violating WP:OWN, not to mention m:MPOV. More to the point, he continues to believe that, as an Asian American, I am somehow always writing with a POV and that I am intellectually incapable of striving for NPOV, and that he has become the "unofficial mediator" of the article. I have tried to reason and to assume good faith, but he refuses to reason. Personally, I think that that is somewhat racist, but that's my personal opinion. Cheers, Wzhao553 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wzhao553

    Three revert rule violation on Asian fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wzhao553 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [61]
    • 1st revert: [62] - 17:36, April 29, 2006
    • 2nd revert: [63] - 22:53, April 29, 2006
    • 3rd revert: [64] - 23:06, April 29, 2006
    • 4th revert: [65] - 00:49, April 30, 2006

    Reported by: Gnetwerker 09:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: After a long period of stability on a controversial topic, User:Wzhao553, who has proclaimed that he edits "with an Asian American POV", has inserted a mjor section of original research. While this has reluctantly been retained for discussion, Wzhao wishes for it to dominate the article, and consistently reverts to his version of the article, despite edits aiming to preserve his opinion while maintaining a balance in the article. The basline version includes his edit, but not as the sole purpose of the article, yet he consistently reverts. -- Gnetwerker 09:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:125.172.23.237

    Three revert rule violation on Developed country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 125.172.23.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Deiaemeth 09:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Keeps removing South Korea from the article, even though other users (including me) have reinstated them back. Keeps claiming that he is reverting vandalism. Deiaemeth 09:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24h Will (E@) T 16:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hale-Byrne

    Three revert rule violation on Caroline_Cox,_Baroness_Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hale-Byrne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: David | Talk 16:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: User has on four occasions removed the same paragraph of sourced information. He has accepted some minor changes that are not in that paragraph and so the previous version is not exactly the same as the version reverted to. Please note this edit, made in the middle of his edits to this page, which is to my biographical article.

    User:Kuban kazak

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

    Reported by: KPbIC (134.84.etc) 19:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: After the collapse of USSR, Soviet symbols and attributes were partially removed from Kiev Metro. User:Kuban kazak is pushing his opinion that it "created a conflict with the original architectural composition", instead of a neutral statement that it "altered the original architectural composition".

    Compared to simultaneously two heavy edits. If they qualify as reverts someone has to augment the WP:Revert policy... --Kuban Cossack 20:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I self-reverted anyway until there is a consensus, speaking of which: If an architect designs a structure (say a metro station) which includes political slogans and motives in the decoration (say Communist symbols). Then years later under polical reasons someone decides to remove them. Wouldn't that be a conflict with the original design of that sturucture, based on the architects plan?--Kuban Cossack 20:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is clearly an article development being going on, rather than an edit war. Two editors are old fellas, so to speak, and I say, just let the article's development run its course. Plain revert wars harm the articles by rendering the pages of useless history. This here, is an article development. Discretion is advised. While it may be pleasant to throw a block or a warning here and/or there, the goal of 3RR rule is to stop edit wars that damage articles, not punish someone and not to get a self-esteem boost by having an ability to punish someone. I suggest leaving this as is. I will mediate between these editors, as I've done in the past. --Irpen 20:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KarateKid7

    Three revert rule violation on Talk:Davie Dodds (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Davie Dodds|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KarateKid7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: TheMadTim 02:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    In addition to breaching WP:3RR, The user continus to vandalise the talk page of the Davie Dodds article. I have attempted to engage the editor in some form of dialogue, but they instead continue to vandalise the article talk page, and my own userpage.--TheMadTim 02:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The content which was being deleted was obviously vandalism. TheMadTim was warned about the vandalism but persisted to vandalise the talk page. The editors original edits to the article were very suspicious, were insulting to the subject of the page and were given non-notable sources. KarateKid7 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Comment I'm sure that you will now be able to give a full explanation of exactly why you view my contributions as vandalism? KarateKid7 is unable to supply any examples of this alleged 'vandalism', which includes "You see, I've been over to WP:VAND, and it states : "Talk page vandalism Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism." You have now deleted my comments three times dude. Please discontinue your vandalism. --TheMadTim 02:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)". KarateKid7 is attempting to cover up their own breach of WP:3RR and WP:VAND (of which they have been advised, but chose to delete it from the talk page) by falsley labelling my own contributions as vandalism. No mitigating circumstances have been offered by KarateKid7 for their breach of Wikipedia policies. --TheMadTim 02:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Your edits are vandalism. Talk pages relating to articles are for talking about the article. KarateKid7 03:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Hmmm hmmm yes yes, reminding you that your actions are in violation of WP:VAND, really is vandalism isn't it? LMAO. How many entries to the talk page did you make when you just made your five edits dude? --TheMadTim 03:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I have not vandalised any article, all I was doing was removing your vandalism. KarateKid7 03:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment So you keep saying, yet despite the overwhelming evidence I have shown for your disregard for Wikipedia Policies, still you are unable to supply evidence of any such vandalism on my part? Most strange indeed. I shall leave others to make their own judgements. --TheMadTim 03:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The page has been locked to prevent TheMadTim from vandalising the page. KarateKid7 03:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Dude! WTF!?!?!? No it wasn't! You Lie! You Liar! Dude! Like, how can you sleep at night? That's just like a total blatant lie you just told dude. WTF?!?!?!? Dude, are your pants on fire?--TheMadTim 03:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice This article (Davie Dodds) has been protected due to borderline incivility, I will revist protection in a few days. I will not personally be protecting the talk page, as it is needed as grounds to work out any diferances. — xaosflux Talk 03:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:203.214.91.5

    Three revert rule violation on Allen Iverson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 203.214.91.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: —Lesfer (talk/@) 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Just won't stop. Has also started an attempt to disrupt combo guard article by proposing a non-sense merge with point guard.

    Uhh no 3rr warning and those reverts are not within a 24 hour period. Jaranda wat's sup 03:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not within a 24 hour period? I see 22 hours and 42 minutes in there. —Lesfer (talk/@) 04:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hamsacharya dan

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

    Reported by: Hanuman Das 06:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • User does not agree with wording and other uses section and keeps rewording and removing otheruses section. Does not discuss on talk page. Has been blocked twice before for 3RR on related article, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, Is currently the subject of an RfC for habitually eliminating POVs other than his own from articles. —Hanuman Das 06:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see why R4 is a revert William M. Connolley 19:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He missed it on his first revert, but he has been habitually reverting that particular sentence as well. It's hard to make it clear b/c he sometimes does it as one edit, sometimes as two: [66],[67], [68], [69].
    Also, today he has done two controvesial reverts in his usual article, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath: [70], [71]
    Should I try to put the material back? or wait until another editor does so? —Hanuman Das 19:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My recommendation

    I am not taking side. However, I may add that setting up RfC does not mean anything unless the matter gets wider support from other users. While I do not approve of such reverts, as they are against the policies, I would like that sometimes the other side (one or more editors) precipitate the matter in such a way that an editor is laid into the “trap” of doing more reverts than permitted. In my opinion, one should set a self-imposed limit to doing reverts. However, while examining issues of reverts, the pertinent point is the contents, which come forth or vanish after reverting. I would like to illustrate the point with an example. Suppose, a person is blanking a page, and one is reverting it – shall it attract the 3RR?. Further, the issue of contents coming or going on account of the reverts are also important. While I do not approve of such violation, I find that in the present case, instigation for reverts were available to induce this user to revert. Under the circumstances, I recommend that the matter may be closed, and the user User:Hamsacharya dan should be warned to refrain from violating the policies. I am warning him right now. Thanks. --Bhadani 11:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Already warned by me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hamsacharya_dan#3RR:warning My interaction with him has revealed that he is basically a good editor. I wish that he shall never violate wiki-policies in future. --Bhadani 11:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TaisukeMaekawa

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

    Reported by: — ciphergoth 10:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user insists on putting their mathematically incorrect original research into the article. Discussion on the Talk page and warnings on their user page have had no effect; they rudely assert that their insertion is correct and ignore all calls for consensus. This is the only article the user has edited. — ciphergoth 10:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

    a classic "expert editing on wikipedia" case - what do you mean? If they were an expert, they would understand the error in their analysis — ciphergoth 11:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps the "nonexpert editing on Wikipedia under the delusion that they are an expert" case, then ;-) — Matt Crypto 11:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Denix

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

    Reported by: Moby 10:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: I was asked to help on this issue by User:Khoikhoi on my talk page. See also the talk at Talk:Ardahan and User talk:Denix --Moby 10:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dominick

    Linkspam violation on Rosary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Reported by: 70.236.4.136 11:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Megaman Zero

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

    Reported by: -- Natalya 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Reversions relate to the inclusion of R:Racing Evolution in the Ridge Racer games section. Reversions have been going back and forth between User:Megaman Zero and anonymous IPs (possibly the same user?). There has been ongoing discussion on the topic at Talk:Ridge Racer. -- Natalya 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. My only defense is the fact I supported my revsions with established policy and large amounts of sources. This is becoming a ongoing style lately with the new additions of editors making and subtracting amounts of content without any fact or sourced rebuttals. I've no problem with the block, and wasn't aware I had violated 3RR in this timeframe. In my most recent edit [72], I attempted comprimise with a discerning of subsections. I'm hopeful this will solve things. -ZeroTalk 17:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The report is a bit old but the reverting continues. So 24h William M. Connolley 19:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Commodore Sloat

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [73]
    • 1st revert: [74]
    • 2nd revert: [75]
    • 3rd revert: [76]
    • 4th revert: [77]

    Reported by: RonCram 18:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Editors are trying to work out a rewrite and have asked this editor to leave all the material in so it can be seen and evaluated but he continues to revert. Others have reported four reverts by the same editor on [Larry C. Johnson]] article as well.

    User:Commodore Sloat

    Three revert rule violation on Larry C. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Second violation today. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TuzsuzDeliBekir

    On Abdullah Öcalan

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

    Reported by: —Khoikhoi 19:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    On Adana

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

    Reported by: Telex 20:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • He's violated the 3RR on this article before. IMO this violation is a rather sad affair: he was only 20 minutes from the 24 hour bar. Telex 20:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    48h then William M. Connolley 20:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mmx1

    violation on September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mmx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): ===

    • 1st revert: [78]
    • 2nd revert: [79]
    • 3rd revert: [80]
    • Left a warning on [User:Mmx1|Talk] after the third violation
    • 4th revert: [81]
    • Left a second warning on [User:Mmx1|Talk]
    • Received a nasty comment on my own [User:Digiterata|Talk] page which includes f****
    • I don't delete my userpage comments and now am stuck with filthy language in plain view. I don't appreciate.

    'Comment:' I haven't done this before as I am relatively new and do not wish to inflame anyone since the topic of discussion is highly sensitive to many, but I don't know if I have any other choice. --Digiterata 21:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Badly formatted (use diffs not versions) but correct. 8h first offence William M. Connolley 21:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NYC5

    Three revert rule violation on Boston_latin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NYC5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Hashbrowns 02:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    No warning for that article and the reverts are not in a 24 hour period, Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hanuman_Das

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

    Reported by: Hamsacharya dan 05:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: I'm reporting these 3RR violations per the talk page comments by Admin Jossi (talk · contribs). I asked to protect this page due to revert warring [82]. Jossi stepped in and put up a warning notice to start with. After being warned not to make 3 reverts within 24 hours [83], Hanuman Das has gone ahead and done it anyway. He has also made threatening remarks on my talk page [84] and has never contributed anything constructive to the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath article in the history of its existence, only criticisms full of weak sources, a trend for which he has been warned by Admin Bhadani (talk · contribs) [85], whose comments Hanuman Das removed, claiming these comments to be incivil when they clearly were stated with utmost of civility [86].

    Blocked by me for a week

    I report that I have blocked this user for a week as notified to him:

    Re: The following report about you:

    In view of the violation of Three revert rule of Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath you have been blocked for one week. I trust that when you come back, you shall continue to contribute positively. I wish you better time in future. --Bhadani 08:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anonymous editor

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

    Reported by: Timothy Usher 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Anonymous editor has been altering and deleting comments on his talk page, those of other editors along with his own, such as to manipulate and obscure the history of the discussion. He has also engaged in this behavior on User talk:Aminz. I recognize that user talk pages are typically exempted from the purview of this policy, but if discussions assailing other editors are to take place therein, it becomes less an issue of personal space than it normally would be.Timothy Usher 07:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    My regards to Timothy Usher and I do generally agree with you. However, my understanding of the issue is that the point raised by you does not require invocation of 3RR. References are always available from the links to the deleted contents. Moreover, he has placed a notice at the top of his page that he shall remove the contents which are useless - though in my opinion 'useless' is a relative term. In my ultimate analysis, he has a right to maintain his talk page in any way he wishes to maintain unless it negatively impacts the main objective of the Project, that is, building the best global encyclopedia. And, I do not find that his action as mentioned above adversely affects the Project in anyway. Moreover, there are perhaps 100s of users who do not archive the contents of the talk page and continue to delete on an on-going basis. Accordingly, 3RR can not be invoked in this particular case. Thanks. --Bhadani 09:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't a 3RR matter. You are essentially immune for 3RR on your own talk page, except in exceptional circumstances. If AE is truely altering the sense of peoples comments, thats vandalism, and should be reported as such. But I've looked, and the ones you mention aren't like this at all. Repeatedly re-adding unwelcome content to peoples talk page is harassement - don't do it William M. Connolley 12:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. But, did you mean me? I think your comments were general comments applicable to all editors. --Bhadani 14:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ndru01

    Three revert rule violation on Gnosticism in modern times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ndru01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: Cedderstk 11:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Persistent adding of link or links to an article currently nominated for deletion, which has itself repeatedly been recreated and appears to be original research; also adding links in inappropriate places like Consciousness. Previously blocked for 3RR, and this time warned by User:Hetar at User talk:Ndru01. Is it a defence that the user may also need to respond to points on the AfD page? --Cedderstk 11:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:KarateKid7

    Three revert rule violation on Graeme Dott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KarateKid7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Reported by: TheMadTim 12:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: 2nd 3RR report in 2 days. User is a persistent violator of 3RR.

    Comment the last time you accused me of this were you succesful? This time your bias is making you remove facts from articles and claim that they are unsourced when they are sourced quite clearly. KarateKid7 12:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You fail to point out that you have also reverted more than 3 times. KarateKid7 12:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: If this is the position, both should be blocked. --Bhadani 14:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I obviously disagree as I was reverting vandalism by TheMadTim. --KarateKid7 14:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Bhadani, please check out the page history here [87]. You can see for yourself that KarateKid7 is lying again, as they did in the previous 3RR nomination [88]. I've only made 3 edits to the page. KarateKid7 is a persistant liar and vandal, and attempts to create confusion by falsely labelling my own contributions as vandalism. --TheMadTim 14:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Strange I can count 5 edits by you in the last 24 hours, all relating to you wanting proof that Graeme Dott supports Rangers F.C even though it was clearly in the external links. KarateKid7 14:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Report new violation

    Place new reports ABOVE this header, using the template below. Do not edit the template itself. See the example at the top of the page for full details. Take the time to do the job right to get the quickest responses. From the article's History page, use diffs (links labelled "last"), not versions, and the "compare versions" button to clearly highlight the changes between versions of the article and show what has been reverted. 


    
===[[User:USERNAME]]===

[[WP:3RR|Three revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLENAME}}. {{3RRV|USER_NAME}}: <!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

* Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- ALWAYS FILL IN THIS FIELD! -->
* 1st revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 2nd revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 3rd revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]
* 4th revert: [http://DiffLink DiffTime]

Reported by: ~~~~

'''Comments:'''

<!-- This is an *example*! Do not leave your report here - place it ABOVE the header"!!-->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=51209917"