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
Line 342: Line 342:
**'''Comment''' User has been blocked 3 times before for violating the 3RR. I hope firm action is taken to stop this edit warring. [[User:Watchdogb|Watchdogb]] 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' User has been blocked 3 times before for violating the 3RR. I hope firm action is taken to stop this edit warring. [[User:Watchdogb|Watchdogb]] 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
***'''Verdict''' - Look the [[WP:MOS]] and [[WP:FAC]] works on the the notion that it is unnecessary to cite the lead when the info is repeated and expanded upon with refs in the main text. In this case, the content was cited at the bottom and expanded in talking about military aid and assistance. So it just comes back to the fact that you are persistently adding spurious {{tl|fact}} tags. So there's no reason for Snowolfd to be blocked when he is following a black and white editing policy and you are not.01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
***'''Verdict''' - Look the [[WP:MOS]] and [[WP:FAC]] works on the the notion that it is unnecessary to cite the lead when the info is repeated and expanded upon with refs in the main text. In this case, the content was cited at the bottom and expanded in talking about military aid and assistance. So it just comes back to the fact that you are persistently adding spurious {{tl|fact}} tags. So there's no reason for Snowolfd to be blocked when he is following a black and white editing policy and you are not.01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
****'''Comment''' I searched WP:MOS and can't seem to find what this admin ([[User:Blnguyen]]) is referencing. I can't seem to come to the conclusion that this is a "black and white editing policy." <b> I have been told user Blnguyen has been at odds, involving revert wars with the user Watchdogb in the past. Incidentally, user [[User:Blnguyen]] has blocked user Watchdogb [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Watchdogb] for this reason and is very questionable. I would ask another admin look into this </b>. Also can you please point out the paragraph in WP:MOS that mentions this. The point should be made that per, WP:LEAD, the lead paragraph needs to stand on its own. In this case, the primary reference for most historical points (including where this great king helped Pandya against Cholas) is the Culavamsa (a religious text). This is like saying Rama burnt down whole of Lanka is a fact (without any qualifications) based on the reference by the Ramayana. Historian will have difficulty validating that. Therefore I think its more than valid that fact tags were needed in the article, particularly in the place where Watchdogb had wanted them. [[User:Sinhala freedom|Sinhala freedom]] 02:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
****'''Comment''' I searched WP:MOS and can't seem to find what this admin ([[User:Blnguyen]]) is referencing. I can't seem to come to the conclusion that this is a "black and white editing policy." <b> I have been told user Blnguyen has been at odds, involving revert wars with the user Watchdogb in the past. Incidentally, user [[User:Blnguyen]] has blocked user Watchdogb [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Watchdogb] for this reason and this 'verdict' is very questionable. I would ask another admin look into this </b>. Also can you please point out the paragraph in WP:MOS that mentions this. The point should be made that per, WP:LEAD, the lead paragraph needs to stand on its own. In this case, the primary reference for most historical points (including where this great king helped Pandya against Cholas) is the Culavamsa (a religious text). This is like saying Rama burnt down whole of Lanka is a fact (without any qualifications) based on the reference by the Ramayana. Historian will have difficulty validating that. Therefore I think its more than valid that fact tags were needed in the article, particularly in the place where Watchdogb had wanted them. [[User:Sinhala freedom|Sinhala freedom]] 02:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
::This exactly what it say on WP:LEAD, "It (sic WP:LEAD) should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." Clearly the sentence in question doesn't have a citation in WP:LEAD and the comparable sentence in the main body doesn't have a citation in the main body. The main reference for rest of the article is a culavamsa and I have highlighted my problems with that. So this block is very questionable to say the least. [[User:Sinhala freedom|Sinhala freedom]] 02:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
::This exactly what it say on WP:LEAD, "It (sic WP:LEAD) should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." Clearly the sentence in question doesn't have a citation in WP:LEAD and the comparable sentence in the main body doesn't have a citation in the main body. The main reference for rest of the article is a culavamsa and I have highlighted my problems with that. So this block is very questionable to say the least. [[User:Sinhala freedom|Sinhala freedom]] 02:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Revision as of 03:03, 25 July 2007


Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.

    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:Rgfolsom reported by User:Ministry of random walks (Result: 8 hours reinstated)

    Technical analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rgfolsom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a new editor, and he was warned last week about revert warring and the 3RR rule.

    A visit to the Technical analysis talk page will clearly show that the edits in question were part of a good faith attempt to reach a consensus, and in fact that a rough consensus has been reached. Other editors working with me know full well that I was not being disruptive. User:Ministry of random walks is on the other side of the apparent consensus, and now brings the content dispute to 3rr. I more than welcome the involvement of an administrator; the facts will speak for themselves. Thanks, --Rgfolsom 19:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not your edits were constructive is irrelevant. You are supposed to achieve consensus on the article's talkpage, not through reverting. Perspicacite 08:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User's first block for 3RR, 8 hours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The block was undone by another admin despite two admins' consensus here of a violation after Rgfolsom falsely claimed on his talk page that his edits actually reflected consensus. (In fact, every neutral editor thought the edits were inappropriate.) He's since gone back to edit-warring. THF 16:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Anthøny is the admin who lifted the block, and he did so after he looked in detail at the Technical analysis history and discussion page. I am not edit-warring and my claims are not false -- I've been working in good faith to satisfy the concerns of other good faith editors. Any other admin who reads the talk page will plainly see the incivility and name calling from THF; my edits are scrupulously sourced and meet Wikipedia standards. Thanks--Rgfolsom 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Anthøny has now reinstated the block for a fresh 8 hours, so I think this issue is resolved. Cool Hand Luke 19:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Singhls reported by User:Gnanapiti (Result:)

    Khalistan movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Khalistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Singhls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In Khalistan movement -

    Previous version reverted to: 22:39, 22 July 2007

    In Khalistan -

    Previous version reverted to: 01:00, 22 July 2007

    Comment

    • This user has been constantly undoing and reverting number of other editors, pushing OR and POV without any references or citations.
    • The user was warned before regarding violating 3RR but looks like it's of no effect. Gnanapiti 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HongQiGong reported by User:John Smith's (Result:Blocked, 48 hours)

    Nanking Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HongQiGong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    HongQiGong reverted a 4th time only 15 minutes after the 24 hour period, even after he was warned. He is an experienced user and should know better than to try to dance around the 4 reverts in 24 hours guidline. John Smith's 21:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – 48 hours, for a violation of WP:3RR within a timeframe of 24 hours 15 minutes ~ Anthøny (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Squeakbox reported by Fighting for Justice (Result:No violation, but advice to both parties)

    Jonathan Sellers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Squeakbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1st revert: [1]
    • 2nd revert: [2]
    • 3nd revert: [3]
    • 4th revert: [4]

    Squeakbox is a person concerned with removing the category of rape victim. He is going around renaming articles so they bypass the category. He is using wikipedia to prove a point. Fighting for Justice 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Technically no violation, the four reverts were not within 24 hours. However, edit-warring back-and-forth over the inclusion or exclusion of the disputed category is not going to resolve this dispute. I am aware that this is part of a broader controversy. Please pursue appropriate dispute resolution such as an article request for comment to secure community consensus on this issue. Newyorkbrad 22:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What was the first revert to? Actually the first revert wasnt a revert but a fresh edit, the second revert was because at that point the cat was deleted and anyway there is no source in the article that he was raped and policy makes it clear I am empowered to remove contentious unsourced material, so at best 2 reverts of unsourced material, SqueakBox 22:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said, no violation, maybe for more reasons than I found. But there is still a broader issue here besides this one article on which a consensus needs to be reached. Edit-warring on this on an article-by-article basis for every member or alleged member of the dispute category is going to use a lot of contributors' time and breed a lot of unhappiness. Better to have the discussion in one place and try to reach some form of broader consensus on whether the category should exist at all. That way, if the category is eliminated, then it won't be necessary to debate whether it should apply to specific articles, and if the category is kept, some guidelines may evolve as to when and how it should be used. Newyorkbrad 22:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is happening, its up for deletion and a blp policy is being evelved. Putting fact tags on where no sources are is inappropriate but well sourced info on public figures or dead people is probably appropriate if the cat survives its afd while semi notable people and any unsourced claims myust be removed immediately. Only after making this report did FfJ finally give a reasonable source whereas he should have done so before reverting, SqueakBox 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very odd now it appears that an anonymous IP removed the category for the Sellers article. Things that make you go hmm.....Fighting for Justice 22:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:John Foxe reported by Storm Rider (talk) (Result:No action taken)

    First_Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the second time this editor has gotten into the same edit war; he refuses to edit by concensus and ignores the other editors. He has been warned already and again today. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My violation of the rule was certainly unintentional. Storm Rider posted the following yesterday: "First Vision‎; 03:37 . . (+4,302) . . Storm Rider (Talk | contribs) (John, you are one more revert away from 4 reverts in a 24 hour period; please stop or you will be blocked)." I did stop. But apparently Storm Rider then went back to an earlier series of changes to find the 4 reverts (actually two reversions of two separate sections) in a 24 hour period. It's worthy of mention that I'm the only non-Mormon editing at an article of considerable interest to Mormons and the "consensus" is a consensus of Mormons.--John Foxe 10:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also had a look at this, and it appears that the warning given was after the 4th revert. Thus I would argue the warning was not valid. John has never been blocked before, nor can I see him receiving a warning - I think he needs a valid one.
    More importantly he has not made 4 reverts in 24 hours - there is also no version listed in the report that he reverted to. Thus I would suggest an admin close this report and label it "no vio". John Smith's 11:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Violation – I'm going to take no further action here; the user had/has not received a warning, and a block would be fairly harsh in this instance. Any violations undertaken after the warning should be immediately posted to this page in a fresh report, and will be handled as necessary ~ Anthøny (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone ever read the bloody page? John, it was the second warning given to him for the same edit war. John, did you do any research on the matter? AGK did you even look at the editor's discussion page? How about looking at the bloody article itself? I suggest you try it the next time you are going to participate as an admin. If not, please do not waste your time or anyone else's. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Archer5054 reported by User:CZmarlin (Result:No violation)

    Ford Mustang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Archer5054 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    I did break the rule I admit but it think many other guys did too. Talk Page

    1. 14:08, 21 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,251 bytes) (Undid revision 146097104 by Archer5054 (talk)rv to an image where car is visible) (undo)
    2. 14:08, 21 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,251 bytes) (Undid revision 146097104 by Archer5054 (talk)rv to an image where car is visible) (undo)
    3. 02:15, 22 July 2007 CZmarlin (Talk | contribs) m (54,298 bytes) (Undid revision 146208063 by 66.87.15.230 (talk)rv to an image where the car is visible in daylight) (undo)
    4. 16:48, 22 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,972 bytes) (→Fourth generation (1994–2004) - rem redundant or crappy images) (undo)
    5. 00:29, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146595957 by Archer5054 (talk) NP) (undo)
    6. 00:40, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146650412 by Archer5054 (talk)undo AGAIN) (undo)
    7. 01:09, 24 July 2007 CJ DUB (Talk | contribs) (50,834 bytes) (Undid revision 146654336 by Archer5054 (talk)You=wrong. No more superfluous images when there is NO CONTENT) (undo)

    This doesn't justify my breaking it, I just read him say that there are to many pictures on that page I feel that the picture I tried to post was different cause it shows what custom add-ons that are popular for the mustang, many of the other pictures are redundant they are all stock mustangs. The problem is that it shows many pictures of the same year of mustangs but different packages... I wanted to show what kind of mustang people are most likely to see (I my version it best explains the mustang to the average person). The pictures on that page that should be deleted are the ones that show canvas convertible mustangs or the other available packages because people can picture that on their own, while the picture I posted shows stuff that is more in-tune with what people would what to see when reading about Mustang custom add-ons. I am sorry it WILL NOT happen again (but please resolve the issue)! Thank you. --Archer5054 07:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This apparently new user was only warned after the violation took place, and so I don't think this report is valid, though a warning (and a welcome for that matter) are obviously in order. TewfikTalk 08:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also believe blocking him would be inadvisable as CJ Dub appears to have violated 3RR. He has already been warned. Perspicacite 08:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation—(by Archer) the four links given are not within a 24-hour period, but closer to a 48-hour period. Although a block could be issued, I am not doing so, taking into account the inexperience of the user, and the apology above ~ Anthøny (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BernardL reported by User:TDC (Result:No violation)

    Ben Kiernan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BernardL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I asked BernardL to Rv himself and let things cool down a bit, but he refused and Rv’d again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Violation – WP:3RR has not been violated; however, I would urge the party to discuss rather than revert at all times ~ Anthøny (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Victor falk reported by User:Tewfik (Result:No violation)

    Apartheid wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Victor_falk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • He was warned on another page and has since archived that warning, but I left him a note requesting a self-revert in any event. TewfikTalk 06:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Violation – the 3rd Revert (21:06, 23 July 2007) was not the undoing of an action of another editor, and therefore does not count as a revert. As such, only 3 reverts within the 24-hour period were undertaken, and a WP:3RR violation has not been committed. However, I would urge parties to discuss rather than revert one another, or risk measures such as protection of the article ... and then who'll improve it? ~ Anthøny (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Emmaneul reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)

    System of a Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Emmaneul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been around since August 2006, with over a thousand edits by now, so no warning was issued. - Cyrus XIII 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JJonz reported by User:David A (Result:No violation)

    Despero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Hulk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Powers and abilities of Superman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This user has put into system to relentlessly revert almost any changes inserted into the articles he overviews, no matter how referenced. He refuses to take it to the Talk, is completely unwilling to compromise, has previously been tempbanned for repeatedly using crude insults instead of reason, is completely unimpressed by 3RR warnings, and doesn't provide any improvements/new material whatsoever. He seems to sometimes cooperate with a user named 'CrystalB4'

    Here are the versions reverted to during his latest 3RR violations:

    Any help with/suggestions about how to permanently put a stop to him would be very appreciated. Many thanks in advance. Dave 15:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that there are only three reverts provided; four reverts are required to constitude a direct violation of WP:3RR. Please re-read the three-revert rule before proceeding to file any more reports. No violation ~ Anthøny (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gerog112 reported by User:Alexia Death (Result:24h)

    Rein Lang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gerog112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    COMMENT: I suspect this user is a sock of User:kairioun who has been previously making the same edit twice.--Alexia Death 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I consider it unlikely. The names' genders don't match, and as a new user, kairioun wouldn't create a new user solely for 3RR. Digwuren 15:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Comment: very probably sock/another account of Kairioun (talk · contribs), who was previously 195.80.96.209 (talk · contribs). It is possible that the user is Kairi Õun (--> Kairioun), an advisor for Estonian Minister of Justice, Rein Lang. Sander Säde 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My suspicion was based on the identical misspellings in edit summaries. It can be due to a copy-paste tho.--Alexia Death 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment 2 This user has reverted/partially blanked the article already twice since this report...--Alexia Death 15:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nine reverts there so far. Threats with police and "I called Florida". Any administrators awake? Sander Säde 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ten.--Alexia Death 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    48h. 24h. Try to suggest he uses the talk page (and if he believes there's a BLP issue, to take it up with an admin) Unfortunately, I don't understand estonian, so could someone tell me if he has actually said anything (as opposed to copy-pasting an entire policy page)? Thanks. yandman 16:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He has not. He has threatened us with police and calls to Florida. I have a strong suspicion that his understanding of the English language is limited...--Alexia Death 16:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S: Notice on his user page says 24h.--Alexia Death 16:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops. yandman 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Drop me a message if he continues after the block. yandman 16:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the help. We will try to talk to him in Estonian to figure out what exactly bothers him.--Alexia Death 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aatomic1 reported by User:Domer48 (Result:Blocked, 24 hours)

    Birmingham pub bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aatomic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Rgfolsom reported by User:Ministry of random walks (Result:Blocked, 8 hours)

    Technical analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rgfolsom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - this editor has just come off a block for breaking the 3RR rule and then violated it again.
    • Comment - It's hard not to see this report as anything but frivolous and a willful misrepresentation of the facts. An administrator lifted the block against me and said that in fact I had not broken 3rr. I posted this information to the Technical analysis talk page at the time of the 4th "revert." User:Ministry of random walks continues to bring an editing dispute here, despite the warning which says "this page is not the place to bring disputes over content..."--Rgfolsom 18:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Melodic Horror reported by User:Hoponpop69 (Result:24 hrs)

    Papa Roach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Melodic Horror (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1st revert: [5]
    • 2nd revert: [6]
    • 3rd revert: [7]
    • 4th revert: [8]
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [9]
    Blocked - Melodic Horror (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3RR rule. - KrakatoaKatie 22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aatomic1 reported by User:Domer48 (Result:)

    User talk:Aatomic1 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Aatomic1|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Aatomic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User is currently blocked [14] from editing when the violation on 3RR took place.

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    User:Snowolfd4 reported by User:watchdogb (result:No block)

    Parâkramabâhu I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported : 22:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    • Comment - Admins, please also note the following disruptive actions by user snowolfd4 his helper, users Lahiru_k (talk · contribs) who have been repeatedly blanking my well intentioned comments on Wikipedia:Peer review on this page [15]. They have been constantly blanking my comments in tandem [[16]. They have also called me edits vandalism and trolling in another instance here, [17] for saying that the article was not neutral. The contents they had removed on this page LTTE had valid citations from reliable sources such as the Hindu. Also I have added the totally disputed tag, which they keep removing, claiming its trolling and vandalism [18]. I have provided ample reasoning for addition of the tags. Most troubling, User snowolfd4 and his helper user lahiru_k have not participated and refuses to participate in the discussion regarding the content he keeps deleting on the LTTE page or elsewhere. This is also unacceptable. Administrators please take note of this. Sinhala freedom 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment User has been blocked 3 times before for violating the 3RR. I hope firm action is taken to stop this edit warring. Watchdogb 23:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Verdict - Look the WP:MOS and WP:FAC works on the the notion that it is unnecessary to cite the lead when the info is repeated and expanded upon with refs in the main text. In this case, the content was cited at the bottom and expanded in talking about military aid and assistance. So it just comes back to the fact that you are persistently adding spurious {{fact}} tags. So there's no reason for Snowolfd to be blocked when he is following a black and white editing policy and you are not.01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment I searched WP:MOS and can't seem to find what this admin (User:Blnguyen) is referencing. I can't seem to come to the conclusion that this is a "black and white editing policy." I have been told user Blnguyen has been at odds, involving revert wars with the user Watchdogb in the past. Incidentally, user User:Blnguyen has blocked user Watchdogb [19] for this reason and this 'verdict' is very questionable. I would ask another admin look into this . Also can you please point out the paragraph in WP:MOS that mentions this. The point should be made that per, WP:LEAD, the lead paragraph needs to stand on its own. In this case, the primary reference for most historical points (including where this great king helped Pandya against Cholas) is the Culavamsa (a religious text). This is like saying Rama burnt down whole of Lanka is a fact (without any qualifications) based on the reference by the Ramayana. Historian will have difficulty validating that. Therefore I think its more than valid that fact tags were needed in the article, particularly in the place where Watchdogb had wanted them. Sinhala freedom 02:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This exactly what it say on WP:LEAD, "It (sic WP:LEAD) should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article." Clearly the sentence in question doesn't have a citation in WP:LEAD and the comparable sentence in the main body doesn't have a citation in the main body. The main reference for rest of the article is a culavamsa and I have highlighted my problems with that. So this block is very questionable to say the least. Sinhala freedom 02:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Horlo/User:Hkdd reported by User:Alex Bakharev (Result:)

    Kiev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Horlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Horlo is a sockpuppet of User:Hkdd as seen from this edit

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

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

    23:40, July 24, 2007


    User:Intangible2.0 reported by User:SevenOfDiamonds (Result:)

    US Army Field Manual 30-31B ([[Special:EditPage/US Army Field Manual 30-31B |edit]] | [[Talk:US Army Field Manual 30-31B |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/US Army Field Manual 30-31B |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/US Army Field Manual 30-31B |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/US Army Field Manual 30-31B |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views). Intangible2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR on the article, user is constantly removing the United States from being specified as the ones citing the document as a forgery. Opening sentence is the reversion. --SevenOfDiamonds 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

    
<!-- copy from _below_ this line -->

===[[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result:)===
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime]

<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=146908350"