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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[User:PinchasC]] reported by User:[[User:Zorkfan]] (Result:): Oops, mv comment o right place; add in header too
Hossein.ir (talk | contribs)
327 edits
Line 1,731: Line 1,731:


Diffs not versions please and don't forget the prev-version [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 15:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Diffs not versions please and don't forget the prev-version [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 15:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:Avraham]] reported by User:[[User:Hossein.ir|Hossein.ir]] (Result:No violation)===


[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad}}. {{3RRV|Avraham}}:
<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->

* Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&oldid=82155583 05:41, 18 October 2006]
<!-- Use this for simple reverts. For more complex reverts, please include information
about which previous versions are being reverted to. -->
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&diff=82160521&oldid=82155583 06:29, 18 October 2006] Removing {{POV-statement}}, and also adding some information
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&diff=82197299&oldid=82195461 12:37, 18 October 2006] Reverting various parts in one edit
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&diff=82199192&oldid=82198413 12:52, 18 October 2006] Reverting various parts in one edit
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&diff=82202613&oldid=82202324 13:16, 18 October 2006] Reverting various parts in one edit

Time report made: 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

''' Comments:'''
He's repeatedly calling others work vandalism. Although I've told him that this is against wikipedia guidelines, he told that this IS vandalism. Even if my edits were POV edits, he shouldn't label my edits vandalism, because of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I consider this a personal attack. The funny thing is that he's an administrator!
--[[User:Hossein.ir|Hossein.ir]] 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
*No violation. First edit does not appear to be a revert, but rather the addition of information. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:From [[WP:3RR]]:
:Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. ''It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that''.
:Also, you're also a frequent reverting pages Avraham reverts, and continuing his POV edits, so It's needed that some other administrator that is not in [[Wikiproject:Judaism]] involve in decision.
:[[User:Hossein.ir|Hossein.ir]] 15:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:There is also a history of abusing administrative rights about you. You've protected the page [[Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict]] in favor of [[User:Avraham]]'s edits. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_and_economic_aid_in_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict&diff=78156935&oldid=78156713 diff]. So I think you're not suitable for this decision.--[[User:Hossein.ir|Hossein.ir]] 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part", and he's done this with his first edit.--[[User:Hossein.ir|Hossein.ir]] 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
*I don't see any reversion with the first edit, and articles inevitably get protected on [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wrong_Version the Wrong Version]. I'm not sure what your statement about finding an "administrator that is not in [[Wikiproject:Judaism]]" means, but I'm not a member of that project, and your insinuation is ugly at best. Finally, don't accuse me of having "a history of abusing administrative rights", and don't strike my comments again. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 16:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:Removing <nowiki>{{POV-statement}}</nowiki>, and also adding some information means reverting. I can't understand why you're threatening me? What do you mean by "don't strike my comments"? Don't get angry. And also, I didn't accused you "a history of abusing administrative rights", I've just told that you've lokced a page, in favor of [[User:Avraham]]. If you're sad about what you've done, it's not my problem.--[[User:Hossein.ir|Hossein.ir]] 05:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
::This feels like you trying to pick a fight. Please do not do that. Try to remain [[WP:CIVIL|civil]]. Jayjg is one of our most respected users. Saying he's protected "the wrong version" is not really proof of misconduct. We don't protect any particular version. And besides, if you compare Avraham's last version of the page with the one Jayjg protected, they aren't the same anyway. And the first edit listed here is not a revert as I stated on AN. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(meow)]]</sup> 09:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
:Ok. I'm confused. Is "Removing <nowiki>{{POV-statement}}</nowiki>" tag a revert or not?
:[[User:Hossein.ir|Hossein.ir]] 11:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
::You're not confused at all; you're picking fights, and now you're actually vandalizing the article itself, by inventing new policies. Your behavior is increasingly disruptive, and you seem to be editing solely for the purpose of edit-warring. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 14:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I'm confused because of your behavior. If you reread your sentences, you'll understand that "I'm under attck". What do you mean by "inventing new policies"? Anyway, I've heared enough of your personal attacks. Your comments are out of scope, because it doesn't change a thing about 3RR violation.
:::And about your words: "now you're actually vandalizing the article itself, by inventing new policies. Your behavior is increasingly disruptive, and you seem to be editing solely for the purpose of edit-warring", this is your opinion, and I don't want to care about it. But, please remain civil, and stop attacking on me, because your attacks made me scared. :-(. The nice thing about avi is he does his personal attacks with voice that can be considered as "voice of common". When he want to call someone a vandal, he says that "All the wikipedians think that he's a vandal". You're not even using that trick. Compared to you, he's a very cool guy. :-). Anyway, please talk about 3RR because I don't want to respond all your out of scope comments. Anyway, read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style Biographies_of_living_persons], writing style section for more information on what you call "invented rules". You can read parts of it here:
:::The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
:::--[[User:Hossein.ir|Hossein.ir]] 16:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm ignoring most of your baiting, but I will point out that "avoiding an advocacy journalism point of view" does not mean that newspapers like the New York Times are not reliable sources when it comes to Biographies of Living People. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Not when the sentence was re-written by Kirby to remove the POV. I believe it would help if you read edit summaries. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 12:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:This is a new rule invented by you. Precisely: "If I rewrite a section and revert it to restore an old version, it shouldn't be considered as a revert". Isn't it what you mean?
:[[User:Hossein.ir|Hossein.ir]] 16:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
/sigh. No. I believe your facts are incorrect. Here are the diffs:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&diff=81939533&oldid=81939480 Kirby places POV tag 00:55, October 17, 2006]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&diff=82155583&oldid=82086651 Kirby adds that the POV is that of the NYT to the article 01:41, October 18, 2006]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&diff=82160521&oldid=82155583 I add more citations, and say that once the NYT is explictly mentioned, there is no longer a POV issue, so remove the tag].

So, I belive that both your understadning of wiki policy/guidelines as well as your '''facts''' are not correct. I believe that it would go a long way in helping you be a much more productice editor if you read up on these guidelines. Thank you. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 16:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part". So, this is a revert. The '''fact''' that you've added one or two more reference for this is not related to this.
--[[User:Hossein.ir|Hossein.ir]] 17:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are not a native speaker of English, so I will try one last time. Kirby fixed the problem at that time, so the tag was no longer necessary. Kirby forgot to remove the tag after he fixed the problem. -- [[User:Avraham|Avi]] 17:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:You're defending yourself or what? What do you mean by '''he forgot to remove the tag'''? You removed the tag when section's neutrality was still disputed and this is considered is a revert. --[[User:Hossein.ir|Hossein.ir]] 15:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


=== Example to cut-n-paste ===
=== Example to cut-n-paste ===

Revision as of 15:43, 12 November 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

    Please place new reports at the bottom.

    User:HunTheGoaT reported by User:Tankred (Result: 3h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Anti-Hungarian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HunTheGoaT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 19:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    No history & no warning: 3h William M. Connolley 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:William Mauco reported by User:MariusM (Result:Article is protected)

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

    • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here. Not a new user

    Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Time report made: 01:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:William Mauco is a [(personal attack removed)] who is pushing [(personal attack removed)] in all Transnistria related articles in Wikipedia. He is a [(personal attack removed)]. He has actually other two 3RR reports pending (this is the third!), where admins didn't yet took a decision: old 3RR violation on article "Transnistria", 3RR violation on article "Sherif (company)"--MariusM 01:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is Mauco. I don't like the personal attacks, and don't think that any decision should be based on who can yell the loudest or sling the most accusations. In this case, I was (again) not warned, but I don't see how the listed diffs can support the argument that there were four reverts. The first edit, of 03:24, will show that in particular, but please study not just that, but all four DIFFs and the whole page history of Transnistria for 3 Nov and 4 Nov. - Mauco 01:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not a new user, you don't need to be warn. Why you consider personal attack the accurate fact that you wrote for "Tiraspol Times See end of article--MariusM 02:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Greier reported by User:Jmabel | Talk (Result: 2 weeks)

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

    Time report made: 03:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Note also that he was reverting four different editors.

    • Greier's ninth time being blocked for 3RR, 2 weeks this time Stifle (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sfacets reported by User:NovaSTL (Result: 24h)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: (multiple, with the intent of removing negative sources)

    Time report made: 05:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Sfacets (talk · contribs), who has demonstrated a clear conflict of interest in regards the Sahaja Yoga articles by continually removing any source which contains negative information about the subject, is engaging in multiple bad faith reverts at the Sahaja Yoga and International Sahaja Public School articles, and using misleading edit summaries, such as deleting an entire hour's worth of changes with a complaint that the word "Hindu" was incorrect [5] The user has been engaging in this steady pattern of reverts for months. See Talk:Sahaja Yoga#Removed links and critical material. We've tried every other way of dealing with this user, but have no choice at this point but to request administrator intervention. --NovaSTL 05:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 09:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ulritz reported by User:Rex (Result:)

    This IP-adress, already a suspected sockpuppet, clearly is Ulritz (talk · contribs), here he reacts to this his punishment which he thinks is unfair. He was blocked for breaking the 1Revert temporary injunction given by the Arbcom. (See here) and this clearly constitutes contious evading of the block. Rex 09:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It was already acted upon it appears. —Centrx→talk • 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Really? On what do you base this?Rex 20:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose it would make things too easy if you told us *which* IP address and *which* article? William M. Connolley 21:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh of course, I'm sorry, I thought you'd see that in the link but here they are:
    Rex 08:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The anon only has 1 effective edit to that page - how can this be breaking 1R? William M. Connolley 11:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DAde reported by User:BhaiSaab talk (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Islamic extremist terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DAde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 16:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user's 4 reverts in 24 hours and 1 minute demonstrates an intention to game WP:3RR. All in all, he has made nearly 30 reverts to the same article since October 17th, ignoring the consensus of several other editors. BhaiSaab talk 16:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 17:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kalymna reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 31h)

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

    Time report made: 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    '2006-11-04T19:36:07 Aldux (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Kalymna (contribs)" with an expiry time of 31 hours (violation of the 3RR at Kalymnos) William M. Connolley 21:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Marky48 reported by User:User:MarmoulakUser talk:Marmoulak (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Iran Iraq War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marky48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 03:38, 5 November 2006.

    Comments:

    • He has been removing several referenced paragraphs for sometime now. He doesn't respect compromises and remove paragraphs without any regard for presented sources. I have put up with his personal insults and accusations (1, 2, 3) and trying to have a rational discussion with him and reach a compromise but it seems that he doesn't have respect for anything that is against his POV. - Marmoulak 03:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jkp1187 reported by User:Heligoland (Result: 3h)

    Three-revert rule violation on United States bombing of Libya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jkp1187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 06:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has continually reverted page without concensus being reached on take page, unwilling to allow a few days for a concensus to be reached and unwilling to talk to other users. Heligoland 06:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No warning, newbie, 3h William M. Connolley 17:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jaakko Sivonen reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 48h)

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

    Time report made: 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:
    Was just blocked two days ago for edit warring. Khoikhoi 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    48h William M. Connolley 20:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ward3001 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Ann Coulter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ward3001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 20:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User was asked to cease edit warring on his or her talk page and in the edit summaries of the at least two of the four edits reverting his or her edits. --ElKevbo 20:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 20:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:66.211.32.50 reported by User:Isarig (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.211.32.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here: 16:27, 30 October 2006 (not a diff, but the actual edit, as this 3RR warning was the first edit on the talk page)

    Time report made: 01:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has multiple other similar reverts on that same page, and appears to be trying to game 3RR (but failed in this case). In addition it is a single-purpose account, created for this page only, so it is a suspected sockpuppet as well. And on tp of that, the edit summaries for most of the reverts have been violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

    User:Fys reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 03:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This is not a simple reversion. It is part of a wider content dispute, in which Fys has been seeking to split the article Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency). This split has been contested at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#St_George.27s_Hanover_Square, and repeated requests have been made to User:Fys to stop making a unilateral split, and instead to discuss the issue. Instead, he said that "There is no further discussion possible: I have provided the conclusive, final, ultimate, clinching, and decisive evidence and argument." (see diff). No other editor supports Fys's view.
    Some of the later edits introduce new information, but all of them revert the article to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westminster_St_George%27s_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29&oldid=84600126 insofar as it relates to the disputed issue, the constituency's name and date of creation.
    See also warnings posted at User talk:Fys#Vandalsim_warning, the exchange at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Stop_removing_information. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:84.64.180.51 reported by User:Nil Einne (Result: 8h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Trial_of_Saddam_Hussein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 84.64.180.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has defended his/her actions arguing on the talk that it was unsubstatiated. While some of it indeed was, not all of it was. In any case, since clearly the removal of the content was contentious and it was not libellious material, my understanding is he/she should not have reverted regardless of whether it was justified... Nil Einne 03:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    8h William M. Connolley 09:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:T00h00 reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 8h)

    3RR on Harvard referencing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by T00h00 (talk · contribs)

    Reported by SlimVirgin (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    T00h00 arrived at Harvard referencing on October 18 and kept reverting to his version whenever elements from before the rewrite were re-introduced, with very long posts on talk that are hard to understand. User:Slrubenstein, who is knowledgable in this area, cleaned up the rewrite on November 4, but T00h00 continues to revert.

    In particular, he keeps restoring: (a) "The Harvard referencing system consists of citations (in the text) and references (alphabetized in a References section)"; and (b) that the citation should be written as "(Deane 2001, 449–51)" — which is in fact just one way of writing citations.

    Both elements were reverted to in the four reverts listed above, and in the previous version linked to. He was warned about 3RR on October 30. [19] SlimVirgin (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    8h William M. Connolley 09:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Simonapro reported by User:Chondrite (Result: 24h)

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

    3RR warning: 09:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Time report made: 09:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User insists on including non-WP:RS in article, talk at Talk:Cannabis#Greg Green.

    24h William M. Connolley 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Elk Salmon reported by User:— Arthur Rubin | (talk) (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Global city (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Elk Salmon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 16:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    Additional reverts (with explanation of why they're considered reverts)


    Comments: Edit comment was usually "rvv" (probably short for "reverting vandalism"). There is no plausible assertion of vandalism here. He was previously warned more than once on this article for 3RR and for false accusations of vandalsim. The changes may not be exactly complete reverts, but the changes made are

    1. Removal of {{balance}} tag.
    2. change of sublist from 1. / 2. / 3. to 1. / no index / 2. (which I believe to have orginally been a correction of a typo)
    3. change of non-specific picture list (the order of pictures must match the order in the text) to his original contribution that the pictures must be the alpha / beta cities in a specified order from GaWC 1999. Some of the text (points by alphabetical) was already removed by a limited concensus.
    — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdraw now, if allowable. I think I've figured out what he calls "vandalism", and it's arguable. I'm afraid we've both violated 3RR again since then, but perhaps (except for the tag) we've achieved concensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    More problems; 1-4 (as originally reported), 5-8 and 6-9 are all within 24 hours. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.230.215.18 reported by User:MidgleyDJ (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Cichlid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.230.215.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has been making this change in an apparently vandalic fashion for sometime. No edit summaries are used, the change is not discussed, and the user does not acknowledge or reply to messages on their talk page. The user previously was making the same change under a different IP address. ie: User_talk:71.134.211.156.

    Probably reportable as vandalism (though you need to know your species for that) but blocked anyway William M. Connolley 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doc_Tropics reported by User:Fix Bayonets!

    Three-revert rule violation on George Allen_(U.S. politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Doc_Tropics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • 1st revert: [21]
    • 2nd revert: [22]
    • 3rd revert: [23]
    • PER TALK PAGE, I THEN STARTED AN RFC, AND REQUESTED NO MORE RVs: [24]
    • 4th revert: [25]

    Time report made: 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I also request that my edit be re-inserted, so that the RFC I requested will function as designed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fix Bayonets! (talk • contribs) .

    • I would note that Fix Bayonets! has also violated 3RR in the article (and actually did so before Doc Tropics made a 4th revert). I have reported Fix Bayonets for this, edit warring, and POV-pushing at AN/I, but wanted to note the 3RR violation here, as well. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    24 and 8 h William M. Connolley 09:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mazito reported by User:Fighting for Justice 22:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)(Result:)

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

    Time report made: Fighting for Justice 22:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Aminz reported by User:A.J.A. (Result: 24h)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [30]
    • 1st revert: [31]
    • 2nd revert: [32]
    • 3rd revert: [33] (partial)
    • 4th revert: [34] (partial)
    • 5th revert: [35]
    • 6th revert: [36] (partial)

    Not a new user, but has been warned about the 3RR in reference to some other situation: [37]

    Time report made: 05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The user's only interest in the Christianity article is the brief reference to Muslim persecution of Christians, which he apparently feels should be expanded to include his reasons for believing Christians were better off ruled by Muslims. (I personally feel that using a mention of persecution as an occasion for praising the persecutors is indecent in addition to being poor content.) The first time around he removed Christianity from the Good Article list out of process, which the people associated with the Good Article project generally considered an abuse. A.J.A. 05:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    24h William M. Connolley 12:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Huaiwei reported by User:Yuje (Result: 24h)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [38]
    • 1st revert: [39]
    • 2nd revert: [40]
    • 3rd revert: [41]
    • 4th revert: [42]

    Time report made: 12:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    24h William M. Connolley 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JBKramer reported by User:T Gholson (Result: No violation)

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

    Time report made: 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    T Gholson (talk · contribs) is 81.117.200.37 (talk · contribs), "blocked 20:04, 6 November 2006 by Atlant with an expiry time of 31 hours." "Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Wikipedia in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy." JBKramer 16:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I'm not. I'm more than willing to submit to a Checkuser. Please get your evidence in order before throwing accusations out there. Also, seeing as that you reverted more that just the "Sock Puppets" you're supposedly fighting, you are 3rring. T Gholson 16:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Four different accounts perpetuating the same edit war on the same articles with the same editor, and it's all a coincidence, right? Checkuser is not required to prove sockpuppetry when the contribution evidence is overwhelming. This may be the first time you've tried to do something like this, but the hundredth or thousandth time we have seen it. Thatcher131 18:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Metropolitan reported by User:(→Netscott) (Result: 24h)

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

    Warning diff: 17:22, 7 November 2006

    Time report made: 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Although this user has not made more than four reverts in a 24 hour period This user has been engaging in edit warring that is consisting of blanket/blind reverting that includes canceling out edits geared towards avoiding redirects as well as other beneficial edits. I tried to discuss the matter with the user to no avail. As things stand now this user has reverted across User:Évangéline, Myself, and User:ThePromenader. A gentle but firm admin warning could be helpful here. This editor has now made 4 5 reverts in 24 hours. (→Netscott) 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This diff is pretty indicative that this user has no intention of abiding by the 3RR. (→Netscott) 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 20:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Waikiki2006 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (talk) (Result: 12 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on The_Disappearance_of_the_Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Waikiki2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User persists to include unsourced, original research on refutation of criticism. Has not responded to any requests for discussion. I would block myself, but am involved in the article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Also request someone to review (and revert) their latest edit, so I don't violate 3RR myself. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please hurry with this one. He's incorrigible and (not surprisingly) ignoring all warnings. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs)

    Blocked for 12 hours. JoshuaZ 07:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cjk91 reported by User:Kafziel (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Absinthe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cjk91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Single purpose account for changing articles to British English spelling. He's been at it for months, always just managing to get around 3RR. Most recently, he's created an obvious sockpuppet to do so for his fourth revert of the day. Kafziel Talk 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:217.235.250.66 reported by User:UKPhoenix79 (Result: Invalid report)

    Three-revert rule violation on V for Vendetta (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 217.235.250.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 00:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:
    Conversations can be found on

    Here is the conversation I had with this user

    Please dont revert a 6th time. I REALLY do not want to report you breaking 3RR. But if you do revert again I will have to. Please use talk page instead I beg you! There will be no more warnings on this issue :-( -- UKPhoenix79 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    Here is the discussion I started and in which I participate:
    Talk:V_for_Vendetta_(film)#Differences_between_the_film_and_graphic_novel_and_The_letter_V_and_the_number_5_.28aka_list_vs._text.29
    (And, full disclosure, which I recently renamed.)
    Also, make sure that you get all possible IP addresses. This is the largest ISP in Europe.
    I'm stopping this now. While I'm convinced that my changes would have improved the article, I'm also convinced that anonymous users stand hardly a chance at contributing. You (collectively, this is not the first experience of this kind) do not accept changes to Wikipedia except from those that follow your social ideas. Whether or not my change would have ultimately proved the better solution, you two made my life here as miserable as you could manage in the short time. You should just stop the pretense and forbid anonymous edits altogether.
    Anyway, good luck for the future. --217.235.249.52
    Report does not include diffs and cannot be verified. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AndyCanada reported by User:Ginkgo100 (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This concerns the sentence "Many N-studies since then have confirmed the fact that the digestibility and biological value of soy protein for humans is comparable in nutritional value and quality to animal proteins" and its reference. Other editors including myself have tried to reword it and move it around to address his concerns, but he continues to revert. I am not blocking him myself because I am involved (I don't even remember how it happened because I have no actual interest in this subject), and will respect the decision of whichever admin reviews this report. This user is suspected of using socks in the past to avoid 3RR; he has not done that recently, however. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment:

    The policy:

    1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
    2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
    3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

    The sentence in the article was fantasy (vandalism) information propagated by an anon IP who is now blocked for vandalizing the soy protein article. In my defense I was merely complying with the policy of Wikipedia. I should be commended for spotting bogus information added in the article. The sentence has been ammended. I was correct it was false info. Ginkgo100 tried to reword the sentence that was false. However, Gingko100 admitted he did not read the book cited as the reference. He tried to reword something without understanding the facts. Now the sentence is talking about rats. Rats is totally different. The sentence reads differently now thanks to me. Regards. AndyCanada 03:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was a third party in this dicussion. As was pointed out by Ginkgo100 during this discussion, removing text that is part of a content dispute is not vandalism. Ginkgo100 was patient through the edit war, even avoiding giving warnings when discussion became potentially uncivil. [43] AndyCanada was baiting other editors through edit summaries (including the "anon" IP mentioned above) while reverting, (ex: "bring it on!)[44] which I placed a warning about on the users talk page, along with a 3RR warning. This user has a history of sockpuppet use to dodge 3RR warnings. See [45]. Thanks. Yankees76 04:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but saying that you're reverting vandalism does not make it so. Glen_S has got to this one already with a 24h block.
    • Observations: No old version was included, and the first was a self-revert. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kingjeff reported by User:Panarjedde (Result: 24 hours each)

    Three-revert rule violation on Australia national football (soccer) team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kingjeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Time report made: 02:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • Panarjedde is into bad faith editing and reverting his bad faith edits. Is bad faith not vandalism? Kingjeff 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, no. Secondly, only simple vandalism reversions are exempt from the 3RR. Do read WP:VAND, and in the meantime Centrx has blocked both of you for 24 hours for edit warring. Stifle (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, very kind.--Panarjedde 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sosomk reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 72 hrs)

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

    Time report made: 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:
    User has previous 3RR violation. Khoikhoi 02:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just reverting vandalism and WGee also has the similat vilation, as well as Khoikhoi has the history of 3R blocks. SosoMK
    Thi is not a true accusation. He hates me, bacuse I voted against him, because I knew that he would attack Georgia related articles SosoMK 03:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the talk page too, this not right, I should not be banned and if I will get banned, this is not gonna be any help. SosoMK 03:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked - 72 hrs. Not vandalism Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pete K reported by User:Hgilbert (Result:24h)

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


    reinsertion of "advert" template:

    • 1st revert: [47]
    • 2nd revert: [48]
    • 3rd revert: [49]
    • 4th revert: [50]
    • additional revert of other material: [51]

    Time report made: 07:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 18:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jaakko Sivonen reported by User:JdeJ (Result: No violation)

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

    reinsertion of "advert" template:

    The user was given a 24h block on Friday [56] and another one for 48h on Sunday [57] for breaking the 3RR. He has also made personal attacks against people who disagree with him, including this attack [58]

    Time report made: JdeJ 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Rm 2 non-4R reports. Remaining report has no prev-version. Don't like the PA though William M. Connolley 18:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I'm not the most technical of users and not familiar with the term prev-version. Could I ask what was wrong with the other two reverts? [User:Jaakko Sivonen has in the last 24 hours made three or more reverts to Porvoo, Treaty of Fredrikshamn and Treaty of Nöteborg. JdeJ 18:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added the prev-version. Khoikhoi 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I try again with the prev-version then. Here goes:

    Three-revert rule violation on Treaty of Fredrikshamn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jaakko Sivonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    reinsertion of "advert" template:

    Three-revert rule violation on Treaty of Nöteborg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jaakko Sivonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    reinsertion of "advert" template:

    Time report made:JdeJ 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • You're allowed three reverts (in the sense that it's not strictly against the rules). A fourth revert would be the one that gets someone blocked. Limit applies separately for every article. No violations. Stifle (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kiyosaki reported by User:Jayjg (Result:24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Allegations of Israeli apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kiyosaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 19:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • These are just a sample of the many reversions Kiyosaki has made today. He has been warned extensively about 3RR before (User_talk:Kiyosaki#3RR_violation), and has been claiming others have violated it, so he's clearly familiar with the rule. Since being informed of the rule he's been making many complex reverts, rather than simple ones, in the hope that they confuse editors and slip in under the rader. Jayjg (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple complex reverts going on between multiple parties. Have a read through this discussion here to understand some of the context and the various accusations going back and forth: User_talk:Kiyosaki#Request. Kiyosaki has also not been told that he is in a position of violating 3RR at this moment. --Deodar 22:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear violation. Also at 18.49 he then also re-added the bit about the Nobel Peace Prize winners, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Theoschela reported by User:999 (Talk) (Result: indef)

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

    Time report made: 22:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

    Indef blocked as probable sock William M. Connolley 19:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:156.56.79.193 reported by User:Tājik (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Afghan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 156.56.79.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 23:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    24h. Warn them next time William M. Connolley 21:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TJ Spyke reported by User:GShton (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Survivor Series (2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 02:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    User:Irishpunktom reported by User:Beit Or (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 07:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comment: Revert parole violation. Beit Or 07:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    24h William M. Connolley 19:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Koavf reported by User:A Jalil (Result:)

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

    Time report made: 09:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User:Koavf has been blocked for edit-warring very often recently [60]. He does not seem to to have changed. After coming back from the week-long block, he started counting his reverts so that the fourth happens outside the 24h-period. This tactic has been used on many articles, especially related to Western Sahara. This time he seems to have forgotten to count.--A Jalil 09:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment As you can see, there is already a dispute tag, and I was reverting to that version encouraging talk. As the user refered to talk, I amended the article (as you can see, these are not blind reverts to one version, as Jalil is implying.) See also the edit made today and the talk page. This is not edit warring, nor is it reversion to a particular version of the page, but consensus-building, as there is already a dispute tag. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like reverting to me. 24h William M. Connolley 19:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rrfayette reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result:Page protected)

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

    This is because I changed WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR to WP:LOP, which essentially leads to the same materials--and is more concise--which was one of my attempts in revising that I had stated in the edit summary. Was there something wrong in doing this? WP:CS was also absent in the version I was revising. FactsOnly 10:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Francis Schonken is being misleading. This was my initial revision. How does one have the nerve to label it a revert? FactsOnly 10:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1stFactsOnly 10:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    2ndFactsOnly 10:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    3rdFactsOnly 10:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Time report made: 10:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    User:Francis Schonken had made an equal amount of reverts when I had invited this person to write on my talk page, which he took almost an hour to reply. I fix any concerns he made have had, yet he kept reverting my edits for no just cause. The admin reviewing this may check my edits and see that there was nothing notably wrong with it, and as I posted on Wikipedia talk:Notability (web), I welcomed any improvements. FactsOnly 10:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    • Report above modified (comments interspersed) by User:Rrfayette = FactsOnly ([61]) --Francis Schonken 10:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the admins know what they are doing. If anyone clicks on my signature, it goes directly to my user page; furthermore, I signed after every one of my clarifications. FactsOnly 10:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From Wikipedia:Three-revert rule:

      The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period.

      (not my bolding) - User:Rrfayette removed "* Wikipedia:Cite sources" 4 times from the page in less than 24 h. There's nothing wrong with the original 3RR violation report. --Francis Schonken 10:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now he is simply being ridiculous. Look at that. He is interpreting my edits in a way to get me blocked. Labeling my initial revision a removal, and picking out only one section of my revision and manipulating it by saying I "removed" is hardly a reasonable case. There is everything wrong with the original 3RR report. FactsOnly 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Protected because of revert war. At first glance, both parties appear equally guilty of edit warring. I'll look into the details. >Radiant< 11:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Verge of aversion reported by User:Ryanbomber (Result: warned)

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

    Time report made: 13:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    I deleted the page, which was indeed nonsense, and warned him William M. Connolley 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: I hope I filled all this out right. Basically, he keeps removing the {{nonsense}} flag. I've tried to warn him and such but he won't stop. If I filled anything out wrong, please let me know. -Ryanbomber 13:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Justiceiro reported by User:195.93.21.136 (Result: indef)

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

    Time report made: 14:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Indef blocked as sock William M. Connolley 14:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mrmiscellanious reported by User: AuburnPilot (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Fox News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mrmiscellanious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 19:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User knowingly violated the 3RR as can be seen by his edit summary which reads "NOTE: This edit is a 3RR violation." - AuburnPilot

    24h William M. Connolley 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Dr_mindbender reported by User:Nehwyn (Result:Protected)

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


    Time report made: 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: After the second revert, a discussion was opened on the Rome talk page about it, but User:Dr mindbender reverted again. Following that third revert, I posted a 3RR warning on the user's talk page, but Dr mindbender blanked his talk page and made the fourth revert. --Nehwyn 20:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This was a 3RR break BUT you also broke the rule on the page Nehwyn - you reverted the 'previous version reverted to', and then have reverted on the following three reverts. Given that and given both of you have never broken it before. I'm going to protect the page and give you both a warning to be more careful in future. Robdurbar 13:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Actually, sorry. I don't believe that your first edit was a revert anymore. I'll still leave it protected - there's been a lot of edit warring on that page. Dr Mindbender's edits still break the rule and he will still get a warning. --Robdurbar 13:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Demonax reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 22:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:
    Likely abusive sockpuppet either of User:Bonaparte or User:Mywayyy, but not proven so far. Continuing Mywayyy's pattern, reviving the ultimate WP:LAME editwar over foreign names of Greek geography articles, across multiple pages. Now at 5R on some pages, e.g. Kos. Block indef if you consider sameness of behaviour strong enough evidence of sockpuppet status. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just 24h :-( William M. Connolley 22:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I afterwards noticed this [66] edit, clearly self-confirming sockpuppet status, and have accordingly indef-blocked as Mywayyy sock. Feel free to shorten if you find it not compelling enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Euskata reported by User:Thulean (Result: No block)

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

    Time report made: 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:His first revert is partial. The user was registered at November 10th, 2006. Did lots of vandalism [67]

    3RR did occur but I'm trying to get both of them to calm down. In my judgement, a block at this point would be counterproductive. If another admin disagrees, feel free to instate a block. JoshuaZ 05:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Madchester reported by User:User:DinobotTM2

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [68]
    • 1st revert: [69]
    • 2rd revert: [70]
    • 3th revert: [71]

    DinobotTM2 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: This editor was making original research edits without any reliable sources backing up his claims. It's perfectly fine to make reverts to such edits. --Madchester 03:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not OK - see WP:3RR for what you can and can't revert. But there wern't four reverts here anyway --Robdurbar 11:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MisfitToys reported by User:Tecmobowl (Result:)

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

    • Previous version reverted to: [72]
    • 1st revert: [73]
    • 2nd revert: [74]
    • 3rd revert: [75]


    Time report made: 03:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: I have asked for him to engage in discussions and provide some substantiation for his perspective. I think this falls under WP:OWN and MisfitToys has behaved very poorly for someone who is an Admin. This has been very disappointing.

    Obviously, I only reverted three times, and did not violate the rule. The notion that Tecmobowl has tried to engage me in discussion is ludicrous; he has systematically ignored all of my criticisms of his edits, even impulsively reverting my attempts to correct his faulty reference formatting. There's a long discussion at Talk:Jake Daubert in which I've already made my argumemts, and a few other editors have expressed agreement with most (if not all) of my positions. Tecmobowl has also accused me of abusing my position as an admin, though: 1) I haven't used any of my admin powers in this dispute (such as blocking, protecting or even using the rollback button); and 2) I never even mentioned being an admin; he's the only one who's tried to make it an issue. I've approached the situation solely as an editor. MisfitToys 20:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aminz reported by User:Opiner (Result:72 hour block)

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

    Time report made: 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    5th revert added: 00:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:Aminz was blocked for 3RR only a few days ago [76] and I warned him before for reverting on Muhammad [77]. He didnt self-revert but I still didnt report him but Im pretty fed up by now and Im sure are several other editors such as User:Str1977 and User:Aiden. He act like he own the article and free to reverting all the time without discussing.Opiner 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:This is not the place to continue this editing dispute. The extensive discussion below has been moved to this talk page as it was cluttering this board. If you must continue it there and leave this for the reviewing admin. Thanks  Glen  08:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    72 hour block - far from this guy's first 3rr violation and hopefully it will show that reverting is not OK. Robdurbar 11:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nielswik reported by User:Beit Or (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 13:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 16:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.17.183.177 reported by User:Isarig (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Hezbollah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.17.183.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here: [78]


    Time report made: 15:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    2006-11-10T14:34:23 Jayjg (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "75.17.183.177 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (attacks and anti-semitism) William M. Connolley 16:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sarvagnya reported by User:Bakaman Bakatalk (Result:No violation)

    Three-revert rule violation on Saare Jahan Se Achcha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sarvagnya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 18:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comment - It was largely due to the efforts of Sarvagnya (talk · contribs) and hid sockpuppet Gnanapiti (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvagnya) that this article was protected. Anyways he made 4 reverts in 24 hrs, going against consensus on the talk page.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Several problems with this request. First of all, please use Wikipedia time, not your local time. Secondly, only 2 of the edits cited fit what we consider reverts. And thirdly, there is a more than 24 hour period between the 1st edit and the last. No violation. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tekleni reported by User:64.39.30.14 (Result: 24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tekleni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    - * Necessary only for new users: He knows about it. He is an experienced user.

    Time report made: 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Check his edits for today. He has been revert warring on may articles. 64.39.30.14 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24 h. :-( Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Zaparojdik reported by User:Khosrow II (Result: protection)

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

    Time report made: 20:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has ignored Khoikhoi's (an admin) decision to leave out the population due to lack of sources.Khosrow II 20:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hrs for repeatedly making reverts, w/o providing appropriate sources to support details. --Madchester 20:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a sec. The 1st isn't a revert, for all I can see. The 5th is a legitimate vandalism revert of an obvious abusive sockpuppet. I see no 3RR violation here. And Khosrow, much as I respect Khoikhoi's good judgment, his being an admin really doesn't give him the authority to make any "decisions" about the content of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's an error, feel free to overturn my decision. Working on a few hours of sleep here. I do see that the editor has a history of incivility and 3RR blocks in the past... so I'd make a note that the editor is teetering towards another block for either of those violations. --Madchester 20:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, then I'll take the freedom to unblock. The article is now protected anyway (in the version he dispreferred, incidentally). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:A_Link_to_the_Past reported by User:Dionyseus (Result:24h)

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

    - His block log: user has been blocked for 3RR in the past


    Time report made: 21:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Blocked for 24h, editor clearly is aware of 3RR per discussions on his talkpage. Rockpocket 09:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:216.165.3.227 reported by User:Patstuart (Result:sem-protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Super_Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.165.3.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    (at this moment, I'm not going to bother showing 6, 7, and 8, as you can see in the history yourself, and he's vandalizing too quick to update Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

    Time report made: 00:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (7:56 10 November EST)

    Comments: This has been a reoccurring problem with this user, who has continually been edit warring to remove this information. Has refused to provide edit summaries or use talk page, despite requests here, here, here (edit summary), and here (edit summary again).

    Has use multiple IPs to evade block and avoid rules:

    Note: was warned about, and violated 3RR on Nov 1 with 216.165.3.241 (talk · contribs). Was also warned prior to this violation. Use has history of using the same computer to make edits over a period of time (notice, for example, 4 edits today were 16 hours apart) - this is why I reported (and, so that if he/she evades 3RR by using another address, can simply be reported to AIV). Thanks. Also, please revert this page if it hasn't been done.

    User:Zero0000 reported by User:Isarig (Result:24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Deir Yassin massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here:[79]

    Time report made: 05:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

    Oops, it is easy to forget to count when trying to stop a tag-team from inserting rubbish. I'm blocking myself for 24 hours in protest. --Zerotalk 09:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We greatly appreciate your honesty Zero. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:Full Shunyata reported by User:-- Vision Thing -- (Result: 24h)

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

    Time report made: 12:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: He continued to reverted even after he was warned not to [80]. -- Vision Thing -- 12:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley 15:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Apocolocynthosis reported by Mustafa Akalp (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Apocolocynthosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Last version by this User not reverted :

    Time report made:Mustafa AkalpTC 16:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Comments: He has a last warning tag after 3RV at his talk page.Mustafa AkalpTC 16:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Definitely 3R; but I don't see a prev-version, so is the 1st a rv? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connelly (talk • contribs) [reply]

    User:Skyemoor reported by User:Septentrionalis (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Democratic-Republican_Party_(United_States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Skyemoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 19:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This matter deals with the first sentence; I have tried four different variants and Skyemoor has reverted them all to the text he insists on. Septentrionalis 19:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit-war about typography is WP:LAME. I wouldn't have blocked, for the sheer lameness of it, were it not for the fact that Skyemoor has gone one reverting after this report was made. Therefore, 24h, and a serious recommendation to both both both both both parties to take a break. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sm1969 reported by User:Smeelgova (Result:)

    Please contact Administrator Jossi for assistance in adjucating this matter. Administrator Jossi is familiar with the copyright violation and contributory copyright infringement asserted here. There is also an active $195,000 lawsuit in France against Google over the illegally distributed copyrighted material which is the subject of this 3RR case. Sm1969 01:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Three-revert rule violation on Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sm1969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works Here is the Wikipedia policy. User Smeelgova is well aware that "France 3" television station holds copyright. The Wikipedia policy text is quoted below:

    External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.


    (This is a direct link to illegally copyrighted material at Piratebay.org, in violation of Wikipedia's contributory copyright infringement policy. Please contact administrator Jossi who is familiar with this case and who has specifically redacted such direct links warning user Smeelgova, the reporter of this 3RR case against me, of the copyright violation issue.) Sm1969 01:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (In this case, it is a reference to Piratebay.org, and the only intent of the user is to inform Wikipedia users how to get illegally distributed copyrighted material. No one disputes that television station "France 3" holds copyright to this material.) Sm1969 01:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is a post on Admin Jossi's board regarding the contributory copyright infringement, in time order (10 Nov 2006, 22:42): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jossi&diff=prev&oldid=87030198

    And yet in spite of leaving this comment, the user Sm1969 did not wait, but instead continued to edit war and violate 3RR numerous times. Smeelgova 07:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Quite the contrary, illegal links were being added so fast, neither Admin Jossi nor I could keep up with redacting them. I think Admin Jossi has grown tired of removing the clear Wikipedia policy violations. Look at the six examples you cite, Smeelgova. Sm1969 07:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note here that User:Sm1969 continues to attempt to engage me directly, instead of discussing the issues at hand. Note again that User:Sm1969 did not wait, but continued to revert and violate 3RR, actually with other editors other than myself. Smeelgova 07:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Look at the six examples. I did wait. They are crystal clear policy violations of Wikipedia and of US law. Sm1969 07:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, do look at the six examples of User:Sm1969's violations of 3RR. These are the violations of the 3RR edit warring policy. It is not User:Sm1969's duty to attempt to enforce what he believes to be violations. In fact, User:Jossi did step in, kept information from User:Sm1969's reverts, and the page is now at a more acceptable status. User:Sm1969 should not have reverted, and instead waited for other users to take action. Smeelgova 07:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Indeed, they are obvious violations. All you need to do is look at the hyperlink starting with http:// right to the illegal videos in violation of Wikipedia copyright policy. It's not a matter of my belief--the left and right eyeballs only need to read http:, to know we are dealing with illegal links in violation of Wikipedia copyright policy, which is why Admin Jossi reverted these examples numerous times. This page needs protect or semi-protect status. Sm1969 07:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    (This is another direct link to illegally distributed copyrighted material. Sm1969 01:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    (This is yet another direct link to illegally distributed copyrighted material. Sm1969 01:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    (This is yet another link to illegally distributed copyrighted material, a video owned by "France 3". Sm1969 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

    From the accused, here is another post on Admin Jossi's page notifying him of the contributory copyright infringement:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jossi&diff=prev&oldid=87059128

    In this instance the user Sm1969 acknowledges reverting other peoples' edits, including users other than myself. He kept up his edit war and kept violating 3RR, as shown above and below. Smeelgova 07:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    (These are multiple indirect links to illegally distributed copyrighted material, including language specifically put there to tell the user how to get the illegally distributed copyrighted material. Please contact Administrator Jossi regarding this as he has dealt with the specific contributory copyright violation which is the subject of this 3RR case.) Sm1969 01:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.

    Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly. DIFF OF NOTIFICATION: 23:49, 11 November 2006


    Time report made: 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • User has been blocked previously for violating 3RR:
    • Please note user's prior history, here: Block Log.
      • The block log shows one other 3RR case against me, and it was for direct links to illegally distributed copyrighted material, which is the same video that is the 3RR case right here. (That administrator acknowledged that he was not familiar with copyvio policy.) The Administrator Jossi has been working on this article and has, numerous times, warned user Smeelgova of the contributory copyright infringement and reversed Smeelgova's edits. Please contact Administrator Jossi. Sm1969 01:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Both users need to stop editwarring. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: Editors have considerably more comments on the issue, which has been added to the talk page. I hope this is not a problem. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs)

    User:212.72.149.139 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Megrelian_language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 212.72.149.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 04:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:
    User kept inserting his own original research despite warnings. Khoikhoi 04:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Please block reincarnations on sight during this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ko Soi IX reported by User: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Międzymorze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ko Soi IX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments:
    24 hours. Khoikhoi 05:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ejw143 reported by User:Wirbelwind (Result: page deleted)

    Three-revert rule violation on Two Dollar Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ejw143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 06:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User seem to be making several changes to promote the Two Dollar Radio company, which is likely his own. His Special:Contributions/Ejw143 history shows similar behavior for pages he's created which revolve around "Two Dollar Radio".

    The page has been deleted William M. Connolley 15:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:seabhcan reported by User:Tbeatty (Result: 3h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). seabhcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 07:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Pretty straight forward violation of 3RR. Arbcom member ruled his source as unreliable and he is now exhibiting ownership tendencies by reverting editors making an effort to add reliable sources and remove unreliable ones. Tbeatty 07:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just for the record, Fred's opinion was based on the false premise that the author was involved in 9/11 scholars for truth. The author is not a member of that group. This thing is a disaster; the usual wolfpack has swept en masse onto an article and started through strength of numbers to re-write to fit their POV. Don't know that it has much to do with 3RR, but I certainly understand Seabhcan's frustration. I have decided to give up editing articles at all for a while because I am so fed up with this crap.Derex 08:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, its clearly 3RR, so blocked, for no especially good reson, for 3h William M. Connolley 14:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SndrAndrss reported by User:DeLarge (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Template:Infobox Football club (edit | [[Talk:Template:Infobox Football club|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SndrAndrss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    3RR warning posted on 12:32, November 12, 2006 by User:Johan Elisson, although he's been around long enough to not need prior warning.

    Time report made: 12:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: He's previously been blocked for 3RR violations, for silly stylistic edits on a FIFA World Cup page, and he almost never, ever responds to communication on his talk page (or anywhere else). It's the usual story for this user: comes to a page or template which is well established and maintained, and just arbitrarily starts adding in material against the consensus of several editors (often factually inaccurate content; see any year of the World Rally Championship results which is my personal bugbear). --DeLarge 13:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe, but rv4 is different, and prev-version doesn't appear to include the disputed text, so rv 1 isn't William M. Connolley 14:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PinchasC reported by User:User:Zorkfan (Result:)

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

    Time report made: 14:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This person has continued to revert my edits without any sufficient explanation and bully on me in general.

    As per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messianic_Judaism&action=history I made only 3 reverts. while Zorkfan has violated his own ban with ip's. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Zorkfan --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Diffs not versions please and don't forget the prev-version William M. Connolley 15:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Avraham reported by User:Hossein.ir (Result:No violation)

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

    Time report made: 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: He's repeatedly calling others work vandalism. Although I've told him that this is against wikipedia guidelines, he told that this IS vandalism. Even if my edits were POV edits, he shouldn't label my edits vandalism, because of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I consider this a personal attack. The funny thing is that he's an administrator! --Hossein.ir 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation. First edit does not appear to be a revert, but rather the addition of information. Jayjg (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:3RR:
    Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that.
    Also, you're also a frequent reverting pages Avraham reverts, and continuing his POV edits, so It's needed that some other administrator that is not in Wikiproject:Judaism involve in decision.
    Hossein.ir 15:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also a history of abusing administrative rights about you. You've protected the page Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict in favor of User:Avraham's edits. diff. So I think you're not suitable for this decision.--Hossein.ir 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part", and he's done this with his first edit.--Hossein.ir 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any reversion with the first edit, and articles inevitably get protected on the Wrong Version. I'm not sure what your statement about finding an "administrator that is not in Wikiproject:Judaism" means, but I'm not a member of that project, and your insinuation is ugly at best. Finally, don't accuse me of having "a history of abusing administrative rights", and don't strike my comments again. Jayjg (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing {{POV-statement}}, and also adding some information means reverting. I can't understand why you're threatening me? What do you mean by "don't strike my comments"? Don't get angry. And also, I didn't accused you "a history of abusing administrative rights", I've just told that you've lokced a page, in favor of User:Avraham. If you're sad about what you've done, it's not my problem.--Hossein.ir 05:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This feels like you trying to pick a fight. Please do not do that. Try to remain civil. Jayjg is one of our most respected users. Saying he's protected "the wrong version" is not really proof of misconduct. We don't protect any particular version. And besides, if you compare Avraham's last version of the page with the one Jayjg protected, they aren't the same anyway. And the first edit listed here is not a revert as I stated on AN. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I'm confused. Is "Removing {{POV-statement}}" tag a revert or not?
    Hossein.ir 11:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not confused at all; you're picking fights, and now you're actually vandalizing the article itself, by inventing new policies. Your behavior is increasingly disruptive, and you seem to be editing solely for the purpose of edit-warring. Jayjg (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused because of your behavior. If you reread your sentences, you'll understand that "I'm under attck". What do you mean by "inventing new policies"? Anyway, I've heared enough of your personal attacks. Your comments are out of scope, because it doesn't change a thing about 3RR violation.
    And about your words: "now you're actually vandalizing the article itself, by inventing new policies. Your behavior is increasingly disruptive, and you seem to be editing solely for the purpose of edit-warring", this is your opinion, and I don't want to care about it. But, please remain civil, and stop attacking on me, because your attacks made me scared. :-(. The nice thing about avi is he does his personal attacks with voice that can be considered as "voice of common". When he want to call someone a vandal, he says that "All the wikipedians think that he's a vandal". You're not even using that trick. Compared to you, he's a very cool guy. :-). Anyway, please talk about 3RR because I don't want to respond all your out of scope comments. Anyway, read Biographies_of_living_persons, writing style section for more information on what you call "invented rules". You can read parts of it here:
    The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
    --Hossein.ir 16:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ignoring most of your baiting, but I will point out that "avoiding an advocacy journalism point of view" does not mean that newspapers like the New York Times are not reliable sources when it comes to Biographies of Living People. Jayjg (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Not when the sentence was re-written by Kirby to remove the POV. I believe it would help if you read edit summaries. -- Avi 12:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a new rule invented by you. Precisely: "If I rewrite a section and revert it to restore an old version, it shouldn't be considered as a revert". Isn't it what you mean?
    Hossein.ir 16:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    /sigh. No. I believe your facts are incorrect. Here are the diffs:

    So, I belive that both your understadning of wiki policy/guidelines as well as your facts are not correct. I believe that it would go a long way in helping you be a much more productice editor if you read up on these guidelines. Thank you. -- Avi 16:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    "Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part". So, this is a revert. The fact that you've added one or two more reference for this is not related to this.

    --Hossein.ir 17:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe you are not a native speaker of English, so I will try one last time. Kirby fixed the problem at that time, so the tag was no longer necessary. Kirby forgot to remove the tag after he fixed the problem. -- Avi 17:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You're defending yourself or what? What do you mean by he forgot to remove the tag? You removed the tag when section's neutrality was still disputed and this is considered is a revert. --Hossein.ir 15:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Example to cut-n-paste

    

    User:USERNAME_VIOLATION reported by User:~~~ (Result:)
    
Three-revert rule violation on
ARTICLE_NAME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). VIOLATOR_USERNAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

* Previous version reverted to:  VersionTime
* 1st revert: DIFFTIME
* 2nd revert: DIFFTIME
* 3rd revert: DIFFTIME
* 4th revert: DIFFTIME

Time report made: ~~~~~

 Comments:
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=87346379"