Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be actioned if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly

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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
Incidents (archives, search)
1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146
1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

Please place new reports at the bottom.

User:Alice.S reported by User:Perspicacite (Result:24 hours for Perspicacite)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:40 7 November

1st revert: 03:31 8 November
2nd revert: 07:56 8 November
3rd revert: 10:00 8 November
4th revert: 10:09 8 November

Diff of 3RR warning: 10:06 8 November

Alice.S followed me from a dispute on Tokelau weeks ago to Rhodesia. I think it's important to note that she 1. flat out lied in all of her edit summaries on Rhodesia and 2. changed her summary every time she made the same reversion. In the first edit she said she "re-introduced sourced material from several editors lost by last revert." In reality she restored this user's vandalism,[1] none of which was sourced. In the second reversion she says she "changed US useage, fixed links, placed reflist in correct place according to policy, subdivided external links section." In reality she did the exact opposite, replacing Commonwealth English with US spelling. The third reversion: "corrected factual errors and ambiguity" and the fourth: "clearer language, changed americanism's back to Commonwealth useage, delinked isolated years." Every time she changed her reasoning and not once did she openly state she was reverting. Perspicacite 10:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In no case did I revert Perspicacite.

In each case I made constructive and incremental edits, saving the material introduced by Perspicacite and other editors - as these diferentials prove:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhodesia&diff=170057113&oldid=170026911

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhodesia&diff=170068739&oldid=170057113

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhodesia&diff=170069550&oldid=170068739

I never reverted to a version of the article previously edited by me but, by contrast, and as Perspicacite well knows (since he has self reverted himself after the 4th simple revert), he has breached 3RR today!

Here are the relevant diffs as pointed out on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Perspicacite&oldid=170071315

(Perspicacite routinely and immediately removes any comments or warnings he does not like from his talk page) Alice.S 10:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

She is, again, lying. I self-reverted my last edit because I began editing after she made her fourth reversion, which I had not realized. The edit therefore became pointless because she had again restored the anon's vandalism. Perspicacite 10:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, I believe that

Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
If I am not sure whether an edit is appropriate, I discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
If you feel that an edit is unsatisfactory, you should strive to improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it. Alice.S 10:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

- No violation. JzG blocked Perspicacite for 24 hours for tendentious editing and making querulous complaints. Sam Blacketer 14:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legacy7 a.k.a. User:70.46.67.98 reported by User:LaMenta3 (Result: No proven violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 22:57, 4 November 2007

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: 15:11, 8 November 2007 (Creation of talk page)

This user has been reverting both logged in and not logged in on Georgia Tech traditions. He has made reversions regarding the same content prior to the ones reported using both the account and the IP, and the diffs I have shown are made from both the account and the IP. An examination of the edit summaries makes it fairly transparent that it is the same user, as he is not pretending to be two different people. This article is the only one he has made edits to from either the IP or the account. I and a couple other users tried to settle this informally through edit summaries first (hoping he might get bored and leave it), which at least resulted in the first concern being addressed that the addition wasn't cited. However, the other concern, which is more arbitrary, that the article should not become a place for a listing of winners of competitions (something that had been informally decided by a couple of main contributors after a similar addition a couple of months ago), was harder to convey through edit summaries (though I tried), so I started a discussion on the talk page immediately after warning the user about 3RR. (Talk page diff: 15:20, 8 November 2007) The 3RR warning specifically tells the user to use the talk page to gain consensus about his edits, and as I have reverted him twice myself, I decided to take the initiative on the issue and start the dialogue, in which he has not yet participated, but another contributor to the article has. LaMenta3 22:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three reverts by a user and two by an IP. There has to be four or more reverts by the same user to constitute a violation as we do not have any proof that the IP and the user are the same person. However, you can list this at WP:RFCU. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kemal2 reported by User:Stlemur (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 02:07, 9 November 2007

1st revert: [2]
2nd revert: [3]
3rd revert: [4]
4th revert: [5]

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: [6]

The user is pushing a dubious statement about the ethnic background of the Greek army and misrepresenting a source to do so. Acknowledges they're edit warring, refuses to take a break. Stlemur 23:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has violated 3RR directly with this account, and also seems to be claiming edits made by User:209.215.160.115 and User:209.215.160.106. User account and IPs blocked for 24 hours (only other recents anon edits from the IPs have been related to this edit war). TigerShark 23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:146.96.22.175 reported by User:72.79.57.24 (Result: 31h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 2007-11-08T20:21:09

1st revert: 2007-11-08T20:27:10
2nd revert: 2007-11-08T21:01:56
3rd revert: 2007-11-08T21:02:56
4th revert: 2007-11-08T21:20:43

The anon not only violates the 3RR rule but also vandalizes this article with deleting anything related to Korea and putting irrelevant information into it. He keeps continuing his vandalism on Gogurye related articles. Special:Contributions/146.96.22.175, [7] [8] [9] [10] Please make him stop doing the disruptive behaviors. 72.79.57.24 02:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Challenger already got him. east.718 at 04:36, 11/9/2007

User:B9 hummingbird hovering reported by User:Axlq (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [11]

1st revert: 23:09 2007-11-08
2nd revert: 03:53 2007-11-09
WP:POINT violation (retaliatory massive deletion of content): 04:42 2007-11-09
3rd revert: 05:00 2007-11-09
4th revert: 05:33 2007-11-09 including re-deletion of content

Diff of 3RR warning: 05:28 2007-11-08

User insists on adding dubious terminology (apparently cited in one book but unverifiable in any search) to describe the subject of the article. The dispute between two users attracted a 3rd opinion, who agreed that the term doesn't belong. In retaliation, user stated on talk page that he would delete all unsourced statements in the article (including non-controversial statements relevant to the topic). Axlq 05:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear violation and some unhelpful talk page comments. This is his first block although he has some warnings for other infractions on editing behaviour. I have blocked for 24 hours. Sam Blacketer 20:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gatoclass reported by User:Ledenierhomme (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 3:55, 9 November 2007 VersionTime

1st revert: [12]
2nd revert: [13]
3rd revert: [14]

The user has also now inserted a POV template, despite the sources quoted being perfectly reliable according to the standards set out in the article (the main source is published by Cambridge University Press). Clear POV agenda here. All reverts/undos within a period of less than 2 hours. - Ledenierhomme 14:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No violation as Gatoclass has at most three reverts (and that is questionable). It seems that Ledenierhomme is the user who is most going against consensus on this article and more talk page discussion of his additions (and a third party confirmation of the sources) would be a very good idea. Sam Blacketer 20:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

66.139.221.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reported by User:GreenJoe (result: 8 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 12:45, 9 November 2007 VersionTime

1st revert: [15]
2nd revert: [16]
3rd revert: [17]
4th revert: [18]

3RR warnings diff: [19]

He barely starts to discuss after he is twice warned about 3RR, and he still reverted. J 16:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the edits, and you keep reverting it to a version that has the same information twice (once in the first paragraph, once in the trivia section), and includes irrelevant links and unclear and odd claims ("Drinkwater means something in Dutch"). GreenJoe has been reverting with no explanation and nothing on the discussion page, I explained each of my edits individually and I think they are valid. 66.139.221.106 16:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't give you license to keep making them and breaking the rules. J 17:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What exactly gives someone license to help fix an article? Have you actually read the version you are reverting to? "The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones.". I integrated a relevant item into the first paragraph, and I removed some really pointless bits of trivia. BTW, why are you so angry? You posted on my talk page that I will be blocked from posting soon, do you have that power or is that just wishful thinking? 66.139.221.106 17:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First offence, 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ledenierhomme reported by User:Gatoclass (Result: 59 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:43, 7 November 2007 (See "United States of America" and "Cromwell in Ireland" sections, both of which were added by Ledenierhomme to make a WP:POINT before his last block two days ago and which sections he restored as soon as he returned to the page today).

(NOTE: First two reversions are essentially a continuation of the edit war Ledenierhomme was blocked for two days ago, which he immediately resumed again upon returning to the article - see his previous 3RR entry on this page above).

(Note re the last two edits that my objections regarding the repeated insertion of these sections were not only on the basis of lack of WP:RS, but also over issues of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, as I made clear on the talk page. Ledenierhomme has himself conceded that these sections do not conform to policy - quote "I agree that the Cromwell section ought to be reduced" - but restored them regardless, on the basis that there is a "precedent" for one-sided sections in the article! Clearly, the user is bent on wilful disruption of the page). Gatoclass 17:40, 9 November 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.

Diff of 3RR warning: 17:04, 7 November 2007

VIOLATION SUMMARY:

After being blocked for 31 hours for "severe edit warring" only two days ago, Ledenierhomme returned to the page today and immediately reinserted the same two sections he had previously been blocked for edit warring over, without any attempt to first establish consensus. He then proceeded to edit war over these sections again, as well as edit warring once again with User Philip Baird Shearer.

While I was offering Ledenierhomme an olive branch on the talk page of the article, it transpires that he has been over here falsely accusing me of edit warring at the same time. Ledenierhomme is, I'm afraid, routinely supercilious and condescending to other editors, as his edit summaries and comments on the article talk page demonstrate. The only change of attitude his last block appears to have encouraged is a desire to get even, as his false 3RR report above demonstrates. His last comment on the talk page indicates a resolve to continue with his disruptive campaign of WP:POINT, which he first expressed two days ago with this edit summary, since which time he has continually been engaged in edit warring. Gatoclass 17:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are just the one revert, but that's still five. Coming straight off a 3RR block into another revert war is exceptionally bad form and Ledenierhomme is getting a 59-hour block. I'm also going to look into other users' behaviour on this article. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:IntelligentVoter reported by User:Elonka (Result:48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:48, November 9, 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 19:30, November 9, 2007

User is edit-warring to insert poorly-sourced negative information into the biography of a living person, Frank Lasee. Repeated warnings have not been effective in stopping the behavior. El on ka 19:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, 3RR and a BLP violation. I have blocked for 48 hours. Sam Blacketer 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was going to come to the same conclusion on the 3RR, although it's debatable whether it contravenes BLP. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This one falls into the 'poorly sourced' category; the source is an opinion column which reports the claim third hand: "The judge noted court officials witnessed Lasee punching his lawyer while in court". In other words, it was the court officials who claimed to see it; they told the Judge, the Judge said something about it, and Susan Lampert Smith happened to take a note of what the Judge said. She also noted Lasee's denial and insistence that all he had done was poke his lawyer to get his attention, which IntelligentVoter did not include. Sam Blacketer 20:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, and thanks for taking a look. BTW, it appears that IntelligentVoter was a sockpuppet of MoreGunsInSchools (talk · contribs). The block has been increased to indefinite by SQL (talk · contribs). I agree with the analysis. --El on ka 02:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:UpDown reported by User:Charles (Result: Blocked, 31 hours each)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 14:12, November 9, 2007

The user UpDown reverted my reinstatement of the Afd notice on the basis of a close when all parties ignored this article and only payed attention to the main article nominated. Indeed, no one even referenced it. Given that I am new at Afd, I thought this was an acceptable process and only desired to get the attention of someone more experienced, rather than someone who harrassed me on my talk page after I made it clear that I did not want to speak with him, and someone who I feel took it upon himself to make these changes according to his own POV. I redirected the article on the previous advice of an administrator and it was reverted by this user. Charles 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The revert are about different things mind. I have reported Charles Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for his attitude towards me today. Anyway, one AfD, one decision which could apply to article concerned. The user should have waited until an admin came in. I was removing a closed AfD, thats policy! The user then decided to ignore the AfD, and merge without any discussion. --UpDown 20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, my understanding is that the Afd was closed incorrectly and I was going on my instinct as to what to do as I was unsure of any process for dealing with it. I posted on the closing user's talk page about the matter and was "greeted" with UD's pushy attitude among his reverts and on my talk page. Charles 21:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been an integral part of this climax. If there are questions, please do not hesitate. Regards, Rudget _zŋ 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Anthøny 21:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This needs closer examination. User:Charles appears to be as much to blame for the situation and pushing POV here as anyone. By blocking User:UpDown you appear to be taking sides. Just my observation. I may be wrong. Regards, David Lauder 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although I would not like to see to tend to one side over another, it does seem that both contributed evenly to the constant reverts. Rudget _zŋ 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree and note that Charles was blocked for 31 hours by AGK for himself breaking the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer 21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised. Rudget _zŋ 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lulu Margarida reported by User:Dalillama (Result: Blocked, 1 day)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 09:19, 17 October 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 14:17, 9 November 2007

Recent 3RR warnings from other users: 16:01, 7 November 2007

I tried to expand a paragraph to include more information from a source she provided for a particular assertion. She first reverted without explanation ("undo"), reverted again when I asked for an explanation, reverted again when I proposed that I go and ask for a third-opinion and reverted a fourth-time after I proposed a compromise edit to stop her from feeling she had to revert. I asked her to stop, she did not. She has a bad habit of reverting and pressing undo, even when edits include spelling and formatting corrections, and of not using edit summaries or explaining reverts.

A bit of background on this user: she has been banned from the Portuguese Wikipedia under the username Filomeninha for personal attacks, and is the subject of an RfC/U here under her previous username. This user has come close to breaking or has broken the 3RR a few times before (see RfC and the recent warning above), but I did not report it because I did not want to inflame a situation which was already filled with personal attacks with a report that could be interpreted by her as being personal. Unfortunately her recent behavior has been incredibly disruptive to other users as well, which turns whatever reasons I had for not reporting her into complicity for her actions.

She has admitted to POV-pushing, so I get the feeling that she has WP:OWN issues on a few articles and that she resorts to reverting and issuing personal attacks when challenged on NPOV or OR grounds. Unfortunately I'm usually the guy holding the gate for most of the political articles, but recently she has shown herself to be just as belligerent when challenged on her other "pet" articles on music, going as far as some vandalism.Dali-Llama 21:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 1 day Anthøny 21:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Staticz reported by User:Apostrophe (Result:article protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 14:38, 8 November 2007

Edit warring over translation of name in a Japanese-only game. ' 03:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe, I've asked a few times to discuss it out on the talk page instead of constant reverting, but nothing ever was discussed there after. I asked Urutapu to answer my question there, too, but it never happened either. I waited around a week and a half, but nothing was ever discussed, so I decided to revert it back. I figured if nothing at all happened, no one would give any answers to my questions (purposely ignoring). I believe it should still be discussed on the discussion page, instead of only editing summaries (which you've been doing). Staticz 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected due to edit war by multiple parties. Both sides need to stop edit warring and discuss this matter. Apostrophe may not have broken 3RR, but was nonetheless edit warring. Staticz needs to stop, too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiblastfromthewikipast reported by User:GSlicer (Result:indef for vand)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 2007-11-07T14:15:17

1st revert: 2007-11-10T10:55:38
2nd revert: 2007-11-10T12:06:17
3rd revert: 2007-11-10T13:41:24
4th revert: 2007-11-10T13:53:10
Diff of 3RR warning: 2007-11-10T13:45:50

Basically User:Wikiblastfromthewikipast added pov text to the article (e.g., saying most scientists are secular humanists, saying objections to evolution are rejected based on "atheist" standards, "theology of evolution", etc) which was reverted several times. In addition, they've added an irrelevant essay to the talk page which I've had to revert twice now. GSlicer (t • c) 04:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked indefinitely as vandalism-only account by EVula (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Not technically correct, as the above edits weren't exactly vandalism, but other edits were and do strongly suggest this account was made only to disrupt. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:200.26.151.10 reported by User:Atari400 (Result:24 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 09:37, 8 November 2007

An editor shows a real disregard for either discussion or 3RR. Most likely not a new editor, and using a floating IP address. Atari400 16:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

Blocked 24 hours. Maxim 20:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.51.184.223 reported by User:Hu12 (Result:24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:44, 9 November 2007

Diff of 3RR warning: 19:04, 10 November 2007

IP 75.51.184.223 repeatedly reverts attempts by admins to maintain Prosper (web site), by adding innapropriate content and linkspam. --Hu12 19:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. Maxim 20:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Frightwolf reported by User:TJ Spyke (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diff of 3RR warning: 21:29 9 November 2007

User continues adding a criticism section full of weasel words and unreliable sources (sites like YouTube, which is not allowed since YouTube does not have permission to allow WWE's copyrighted video on their site). User was engaged in this same edit war a couple of weeks ago. TJ Spyke 23:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours. By the way, Spyke, your sig really sucks on my set up. Perhaps you could slip into something more reader friendly? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:GundamsRus reported by User:MalikCarr (Result:48 hours )

Three-revert rule violation on

Image:Rengo2.jpeg, Image:Zaft2.jpeg. GundamsRus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: 02:31

Image:Rengo2.jpeg

1st revert: 05:14
2nd revert: 07:55
3rd revert: 10:37
4th revert: 15:19
5th revert: 21:25
6th revert: 00:25

Image:Zaft2.jpeg

1st revert: 05:11
2nd revert: 07:52
3rd revert: 10:38
4th revert: 15:20
5th revert: 21:24
6th revert: 00:26

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: Unnecessary, user has been warned of 3RRV multiple times before.

Sockpuppet account GundamsRus (talk · contribs) is continuing to revert a contested fair use rationale. Original editor who posted it has not explained or discussed the matter, and when reverted, has complained of vandalism (which were appropriately ignored here). GundamsRus has taken up the flag of keeping the bogus template on the image as part of an ongoing WP:POINT effort that has been discussed at length elsewhere. Trying to discuss edits with this user has proven utterly worthless before; has only ceased edit warring on article mainspace when blocked for vandalism or other 3RRV. MalikCarr 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my reverts over the period of today are to reverse the vandalistic reversions of User:MalikCarr and User:Jtrainor removing copyright violation notice without addressing the issues raised in the notice. - the copyright images are used inappropriately in a number of articles in an info box under the info line indicating the 'faction' the fictional character belongs to. Immediately following the copyright image is a text name of the faction. Thus the image is not usable under fair use rationale WP:NFCC#8 - the information provided by the image are aptly covered by the text and the use of the image is in vio of copyright rule.207.69.137.42 04:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no issues to address - the template is utterly bogus, and the original editor who pasted it there hasn't engaged in any discussion otherwise - furthermore, to suggest that that image could be replaced by text (nevermind WP:INFOBOX concerns) could be more or less applied to any image. Your policy interpretation is far off, as it often is. Finally, if this recent diatribe doesn't establish you as (A) a sockpuppet, and (B) having never had a shred of good faith or civility in the first place, I don't know what does. MalikCarr 06:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... Your argument is - WP copyright guidelines won't let me use copyright images in the way I want to so I can ignore them and the templates designed to help articles conform to the guidelines???GundamsRus 15:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours. Such edit-warring is not tolerated. Maxim 15:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Placebo Effect reported by User:The Placebo Effect (Result: Blocked 24h, then unblocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 09:05, 10 November 2007

Even though I was reverting a user who was continuosly making edits against consensus, I violated 3RR. I can not undo the change because edits have been made since then. Because I am an Admin, I would block my self, but feel somone else should do it. The Placebo Effect 02:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Placebo for 24 hours. The editor she was warring with has been blocked for a week as this is his fourth edit-warring block in what appears to be as many weeks. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? Normally if someone reports themselves they have no intention of reverting further. It would have been better to not block her but just make her promise to stop. --Deskana (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a rather unnecessary block done in good faith. I've unblocked, as blocks are preventative, and if a user reports themselves, it's more of a promise to stop. Maxim 15:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nanshu reported by User:coasilve (Result:no action yet)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

1st revert: [21]
2nd revert: [22]
3rd revert: [23]
4th revert: [24]

This user actually has repeated this revert numerous times. The above are just the latest four. Coasilve 03:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't technically a 3RR vio, since these reverts do not fall into a twenty-four hour period. Still, we have a long-term edit war, and both Nanshu and coasilve are participating. Both users need to cease and take this to the talk page, and also stop referring to each others' edits as "vandalism" during a content dispute. I'm going to watchlist this article and will have block users if they continue to revert. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heimstern, it's too bad if you equate me with ill-mannered guys. I've made efforts to build consensus through discussion ([25], [26]). This is how Wikipedia works, and in fact worked well as long as involved Wikipedians joined the discussion. But what should I do if opponents seemingly have no intention of building consensus through discussion and attempt to accomplish their aim by overwhelming reverts instead? Note that Coasilve is a newcomer. So he/she might be a naive performer of the be-bold policy. But judging from their behavior, the others are intentional. Of course, I'm fully aware that revert-wars are harmful. After realizing that we were in a deadlock, I sought admin helps about user behavior (not content disputes) ([27], [28]), but no progress has been made.

Anyway, Dongyi is a special case. The revision in concern contains a fair-use image. A bot works very hard to delete unused fair-use images ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]). I refrained from reverting until shortly before the deadlines ([35], [36], [37]), but it didn't help. The bot will come again to delete the image since Coasilve reverted yet again ([38]). I ask for permission to keep the image on an interim version. --Nanshu 09:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snocrates reported by User:HLT (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous versions reverted to:

- 07:10, 11 November 2007 [39]
- 05:54, 11 November 2007 [40]
- 05:44, 11 November 2007 [41]
- 22:40, 10 November 2007 [42]

Comments: I posted a notification to the editor's :talk page as outlined here. The editor insists that her/his interpretation of a category's definition is the correct one, and that it must be applied to this article until I initiate a CFD that "overturns" the "accepted definition". However, nowhere on the category's page [[Category:German-Czech people]] or discussion page Category talk:German-Czech people is its scope defined. The editor claims that I "refuse" to start a CFD (edit summary of last revert reads "should stay pending defn in CFD, which editor refuses to start"), yet s/he has not started a CFD to establish that the category should include her/his definition her/himself.

Both users blocked for 24 hours by Mercury (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — madman bum and angel 06:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beh-nam reported by User:thegreyanomaly (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 16:41, 11 November 2007

22:44, 11 November 2007

Beh-nam kept trying to implement Afghanistani/Afghani as a demonym for the people of Afghanistan. This view was slashed in discussion. He tried to claim that Afghani is a proper demonym, citing this http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/afghani?view=uk afghani

/afgaani/

 • noun (pl. afghanis) the basic monetary unit of Afghanistan, equal to 100 puls.

 — ORIGIN Pashto.

clearly this DOES NOT indicate Afghani as a proper term, though four times he cited it to try to get Afghani (and Afghanistani) ont to the page

Thegreyanomaly 04:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Afghanistani, I provided a source from here. For the one you mentioned above, I did not read it carefully. But I can easily provide other sources that use Afghani. I'm the one providing sources showing that these terms are also used, you're the removing them, thus it's you that's edit warring and not me. -- Behnam 05:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing was agreed in the discussion. It was agreed that if a source can be provided to prove their usage then they can be used. I provided the source for Afghanistani, and for Afghani I provided it on my 4th edit, although I did not read it carefully enough, here's another one. I'm using the discussion page you're not, you're not even on the discussion page! You just came out of no where and rv'ing without any explanation! It's you thats edit warring and not cooperating. -- Behnam 06:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Af·ghan·i (āf-gān'ē, -gä'nē) Pronunciation Key

adj. Of or relating to Afghanistan; Afghan.

n. pl. Af·ghan·is A native or inhabitant of Afghanistan; an Afghan.

[Pashto afghānī, from afghān, Afghan.]

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. -- Behnam 06:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless. Beh-nam (talk · contribs) blocked for twenty-four hours. — madman bum and angel 06:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jenny Midol and User:Hairdye100 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 23:38, 11 November 2007

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 23:05, 11 November 2007

(23:48, 11 November 2007)

Both editors warned - both continued to revert. Tried to mediate on talk page but User:Jenny Midol ignored. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both users blocked for twenty-four hours. — madman bum and angel 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:82.26.98.80 reported by User:HelloAnnyong (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 04:27, November 12, 2007

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: 04:50, November 12, 2007

The user attempted to solve an edit discussion on the page by heavily removing sections of the text. There was already a WP:3O listing for the page, to which I responded. VoABot II reverted the user's edits five times. The user was unaware of what a bot was, but another editor explained it on the user's talk page. I left a warning on the user's page, and the user responded on my talk page. I reverted the page once back to a better version, and the user reverted it once more. The page is under some form of edit war, and the user's removal of a majority of the page is unhelpful to resolving the debate. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor blocked for twenty-four hours. Initiating discussion with Voice of All (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) about not having VoABot II (talk · contribs) revert to itself. — madman bum and angel 06:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.58.71.152 reported by User:Tiptoety (Result: No action)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:35, 12 November 2007

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: 03:04, 12 November 2007
User may be using Biblical1 to edit war as well. Tiptoety 06:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No action yet taken. The user has reverted only three times. Furthermore, the 3RR warning was placed after all reported reversions. — madman bum and angel 06:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.239.133.107 reported by User:Jeff G. (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.

. 71.239.133.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: 06:51

1st revert: 07:50
2nd revert: 08:20
3rd revert: 08:25
4th revert: 08:35

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: 08:34

Violation of WP:3RR following attacks and personal attacks (generally in Edit Summaries) and refusal to sign posts. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three revert rule does not apply in respect of a user editing their own user space. There is no violation here; if you think the user is vandalising then he can be reported on WP:AIV. Sam Blacketer 12:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That rule does not apply to "reverts done by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages". "User talk page" does not qualify for that exception, or the exception would read "reverts done by a user within his or her own user space". Also, this user consistently stated "I will undo your edit without even reading it", a violation of "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user" at Wikipedia:User page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings for every removal from the user's user talk page without reading. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Simon D M reported by User:Sfacets (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 11:09, 12 November 2007

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: Not a new user.

User is persistently and disruptively safeguarding his/her version of the article, this without consensus, despite requests to wait for other user's input. Sfacets 14:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly no violation. Simon D M has only a single revert; the other edits are different attempts to improve the page and not attempts to undo the work of others. It is a pity that this page has yet again been the source of editing disputes and I am thinking whether some measure of protection may be necessary. Sam Blacketer 14:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some measure of protection would be a good idea. --Simon D M 18:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page for a couple of days to allow discussion over contestd edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You protected the page? In this case it can be argued that it is an endorsement of the current version - especially since you protected the page after simon made more than 3 reverts (on top of those mentioned above) Sfacets 21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection isn't an endorsement of any version. However as it happens it's protected on your latest edit. This complaint makes it clear you think there is an edit war going on. Failing a block for 3RR violaiton the next best solutoin for edit warring is page protection. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of complaining about the block, let's use the time to resolve the outstanding issues on the talk page. --Simon D M 13:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yamla reported by User:Juice Loose (Result: SP account blocked indef)

Three-revert rule violation on

User continues to edit-war in a content dispute with other users in regards to an image taken by Naama which was uploaded on Commons[43]

Previous version reverted to: 16:21, 12 November 2007

This report was made by banned sockpuppeteer, Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs). Note that the image was missing source, license, and (if fair-use) was being used in violation of WP:IUP solely to depict a living person. It is not a violation of WP:3RR to revert simple vandalism. --Yamla 17:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also not vandalism to revert edits by banned users. See WP:BAN, 5.3. The last two reverts given above fall into that category. --Yamla 17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Juice Loose indef-blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:THYAST reported by User:Orangemike (Result: No action)

Three-revert rule violation on

Repeatedly reverts to recreate a vaniscruftspam article; has been duly warned and offered help in creating a sandbox. Orange Mike 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen a user talk page noted here. He seems to have stopped reverting it for the moment. I'll close this for now. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reginmund reported by User:Ssilvers (Result:72 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [44]

1st revert: [45] 16:25, 12 November 2007
2nd revert: [46] 17:01, 12 November 2007
3rd revert: [47] 17:06, 12 November 2007
4th revert: [48] 17:11, 12 November 2007

A short explanation of the incident:

User:Reginmund also violated the 3-revert rule on 28 October 2007, concerning his view that there ought to be a distinguish tag on the article. After that, the reversion was discussed on the Gilbert and Sullivan talk page and on User:Reginmund's talk page, and no consensus was reached to keep the distinguish tag. Today, User:Reginmund just went ahead and edit-warred again over the same issue. Ssilvers 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi has given Reginmund a well deserved 72 hours to think over whether it's worth revert-warring over a {{distinguish}} tag. Sam Blacketer 00:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cberlet reported by User:Marvin Diode (Result: Page Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [49]

A short explanation of the incident. Marvin Diode 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cberlet reverted to delete the following passage: ...claims that certain photos of barred spiral galaxies and of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory plasmoid experiments which appeared in LaRouche's New Solidarity newspaper and Fusion magazine, are "reminiscent of the swastika" and of the Nazi "theory of spiraling expansion/conquest."^[1]. His deletions are mixed with other edits as camouflage, but still violate the 3RR policy. --Marvin Diode 22:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that you have reverted Cberlet's edits multiple times as well; try to discuss your conflicts on the talk page in the future. I have protected the page for 1 week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I obeyed the 3RR rule, and Cberlet violated it. And how often are there 3RR violations without an edit dispute? --Marvin Diode 15:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Artisol2345 reported by User:Mitchazenia (Result: Blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 00:04, November 5, 2007

1st revert: [50]
2nd revert: [51]
3rd revert: [52]

Diff of 3RR warning: [53]

Long story short, User:Aristo2345 keeps creating articles from redirects under an IP (72.130.41.48). The articles are unnecessary and keeps reverting. This was discussed in an IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-roads) and later found that Aristo2345 has sockpuppets for himself. These include User:Mo42, User:Alittlegoo and User:YORKABE. User:Rschen7754 has blocked all the accounts except for the IP (72.130.41.48) for sockpuppetry. The disputed article is at AfD under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 76 in Nebraska. The user there is voting under different usernames/IPs to keep.^Mitch32^contribs 23:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note:This is my first 3RR request, so I may have screwed up somewhere.)

Attempts have been made to block the offending users. -- tariqabjotu 08:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skyring reported by User:Timeshift9 (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 09:07, November 13, 2007

A drive-by (User:John) removed the flagcruft from the infobox. Skyring re-added it, and I removed it stating Well I actually agree with him. Australia is already linked. None of the previous PMs have a flag in their infobox. could be considered NPOV. 2 want it gone now, so take it to discussion for consensus. Well he reverts that, stating that as he isn't a regular John Howard article editor, that somehow his voting right of 1 as a wikipedian doesn't count. Then another revert despite leaving comment on the article talk page by me. Timeshift 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshift has a history of mindless reverting, such as his recent odd behaviour on a talk page where he got into an edit war over the comments of other users. After looking at the discussion, I'm satisfied we don't need the flag. I note that Timeshift's summary above is inaccurate. --Pete 00:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with Skyring's reverts, he has not violated 3RR. 3 reverts are allowed, it is the 4th which would be a violation. Peter Ballard 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three edits do NOT constitute a violation of 3RR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sparrowman980 reported by User:Huaiwei (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 05:47, 7 November 2007

Despite reporting on the reasoning behind a spate of reverts in the talkpage[54] and an RFC[55], User:Sparrowman980 has been habitually reverting this article by insisting on including the Qantas entry with disputed figures within the relevant statistical tables. Content disagreements were clearly spelled out in the edit history, as well as in the above talkpage, but he has chosen to ignore the later whilst reverting. This is not the first time has has been engaging revert wars over this one sticking point, albeit it was with other editors. He appears prepared to revert war with anyone who dares take down that single entry he clings dearly to.--Huaiwei 06:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for twenty-four hours per the evidence above, but your presumptuous characterization of Sparrow's actions are not going to solve anything. -- tariqabjotu 08:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robinepowell reported by User:IrishLass0128 (Result: warning)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [56]

1st revert: [57]
2nd revert: [58]
3rd revert: [59]
4th revert: [60]
5th revert: [61]

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: [62]

Robinepowell insists her list of episodes is correct despite the fact that four other sources say she is wrong. Her last edit was to blank the document, bordering on vandalism saying "nobody believes me, so I'll remove everything" rather than her believing four cited sources. She was warned to not revert a third time, but did so anyway. Thank you I may have inadvertantly also broke the three RR this afternoon missing that it had been less than 24 hours, my mistake. I would undo the revert, but she has since blanked/added TBD to the article. My mistake none the less. Irish Lass 19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning was not issued before the last reported reversion. — madman bum and angel 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was reporting her as she was blanking the page, a one minute difference. Can you please revert to last version that matches documented citations? Thank you Irish Lass 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend raising the matter on the talk page, and if there is a consensus for it to be the way you suggest, someone else will revert it. Stifle (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's there, it's on her talk page, she just chooses to ignore four other sources over her one source. What can you do other than hope someone reverts her edits. I've already got two reverts in 24 hours so I'm not going to do it. I'll just hope someone else puts it back and comments. Thank you. Irish Lass 21:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:Gnanapiti (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to:
For the first revert, it's not possible to provide a previous version, but it is still a revert because he has undone other editor's edit by removing "highest".
For second revert - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jnanpith_Award&oldid=171245363
Again, for 3rd revert, its difficult to provide previous version, because he has removed a template.
For fourth revert - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jnanpith_Award&oldid=171273183

User:Fowler&fowler is an experienced editor in Wikipedia and has been blocked before for violating 3RR. Therefore he's fully aware of 3RR rules and situations. Gnanapiti 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a violation of the three revert rule. The first edit cited is not undoing the work of another editor. Further, the substance of the second edit and first revert (describing the Award as merely another Indian literary award) is contradicted by the fourth edit which describes the Award as widely regarded as the most prestigious. There is an editing dispute, but there seems to be good will and an attempt to reach compromise on the part of Fowler&fowler. Sam Blacketer 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Domaleixo reported by User:Merbabu (Result:48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

1st revert: 14:23, 14 November 2007 as anon IP while blocked.
2nd revert: 15:36, 14 November 2007
3rd revert: 17:54, 14 November 2007
4th revert: 18:41, 14 November 2007

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: 18:47, 14 November 2007

User:Domaleixo: this user is warring on several pages - but here I've reported List of countries spanning more than one continent. I removed contentious uncited and WP:OR material with full edit summaries and they have reverted back without acknowledging the summaries. He is also removing reference to East Timor being South East Asia (including removing CIA and UN references).

Note, this editor has been editing under the IPs 189.41.199.20 and 189.41.194.183 after being blocked for incivility. ([63], [64], [65], [66]) Ie, the anon IP's make the same edits, with the same upper case style and sign their posts "Emerson".

There is a lot more I can say about this editor on other articles if required. --Merbabu 09:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that the IPs are the same user. The shouty edit summaries, which the user repeats when making following edits, are very disruptive but are almost the only explanation and justification he gives for his edits. This may be his first block for 3RR but he is only just off a 48 hour block for harassment. I've given him another 48 hours for this. Sam Blacketer 09:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- User is back with sock account: User:Fretlin contribs --Merbabu 10:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Collard reported by User:Adraeus (Result:No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 20:19, 13 November 2007

Collard refuses to collaborate in favor of deleting clearly valid material. Collard has consistently maintained an aggressive asocial position regarding all matters pertaining to the article since, at least, the time I began working with other editors to develop the article. Adraeus 11:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, correct me if I am wrong, you both are in violation of 3RR and are edit warring. There is no discussion on the article talk page and none on the talk page of the user except for the notice that you have reported them here. Perhaps a third opinion would be useful before this gets further out of hand. I know you have questioned the addition in the edit summaries but have you attempted to discuss with the editor? Sorry of I overlooked something. JodyB_{Roll, Tide, Roll} 13:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Adraeus, are you not the one trying to add unsourced information into the article? Upon closer examination it seems every entry in that section is sourced except for the one which you are inserting. I would strongly suggest three things. First, source the material, second, discuss the entry on the article talk page and third, seek help via dispute resolution if needed. JodyB_{Roll, Tide, Roll} 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not violated the 3RR. Whether the material is sourced is irrelevant to whether Collard has violated the 3RR. Adraeus 02:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly valid" means nothing; you're entitled to your opinion, but (all together now!) "verifiability, not truth". This is especially true of a "notable cultural depictions" section that is extremely prone to gathering "he looks like a yuppie to me!"-type cruft. Also, if you want to be picky, I'm not in violation of 3RR, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." I'm at three in the last 24 hours. I don't intend to revert any more. Lewis Collard! (when in doubt, move on) 17:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I take it as a compliment that you call my stance in favour of verifiability "aggressive". So thanks. ;) Lewis Collard! (when in doubt, move on) 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I called aggressive and asocial. That's what I called your non-collaborative behavior.
Oh, yes, let's not forget that the material you continuously delete is "clearly valid" and does mean something. Google: "American Psycho" +yuppie. Amazon.com: American Psycho. You are simply unwilling to verify material before you remove the material from the article. Instead, you cling to the falsehood that you are a defender of verifiability whereas you are merely an extreme sort of deletionist. Adraeus 02:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collard is correct to say he has not broken the letter of the three revert rule. I regard it as a good sign that he said "if you want to be picky" because admins enforcing the three revert rule are instructed not to be picky and to be willing to block even if someone has not broken the letter of the rule but is disruptively edit warring. Because he has given a pledge not to revert any more it would be wrong to block. I endorse everything that JodyB says about discussing edits, as well. Sam Blacketer 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Collard is incorrect, as are you. "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive."
As for your idealistic argument that because Collard promised not to revert anymore, blocking him would be wrong, what of a man who promises to not commit crime simply because he was caught? Would charging him with the crime be wrong then?
A promise to do no wrong after one has done wrong does not change the fact that a wrong has been done. By failing to enforce the 3RR, you are failing your judiciary responsibility. Adraeus 02:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adraeus, please do not confuse Wikipedia with a legal system. Administrative action is not judicial. Administrators only block to prevent disruption, and when Collard gave an assurance that he would avoid disruption then a block became inappropriate. Had I have blocked him for disruptive reverting I would have had to block you for the same length of time. As of now it is your behaviour, in disputing the close of this report and in reverting again without explanation or justification on the article talk page or trying to talk over your disagreement, which is becoming disruptive. Please reconsider what you are doing because discussing edits on talk pages is far more likely to secure agreement to your wording, and no-one can accuse an editor negotiating in good faith on talk pages of disruption. Sam Blacketer 10:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Adraeus's defense here, he did not simply revert me, though his edit summary suggested otherwise. He re-added the material, with a source (well, seven sources), which makes both me and him happy. So he's not being disruptive on that count. Lewis Collard! (when in doubt, move on) 17:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:JackWilliams reported by User:Wrad (Result: Fully protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous versions reverted to:
11:47, 13 November 2007 -- dispute over a sentence on the history of the school
15:39, 13 November 2007 -- dispute over mentioning the business ranking
23:14, 13 November 2007 -- edit war over consolidating the lead into coherent paragraphs.

(In all of these examples, the edit on the right is the version before he reverts it later on in the day)

1st revert: 12:31, 13 November 2007 -- reverts business ranking
2nd revert: 22:54, 13 November 2007 -- reverts history sentence
3rd revert: 22:57, 13 November 2007 -- reverts lead
4th revert: 23:18, 13 November 2007 -- reverts lead again (under an IP address which he also uses to edit his user page)
5th revert: 23:22, 13 November 2007 -- and again

Diff of 3RR warning: Jack has been editing the BYU article for a few years. He is not a new user and should already know about 3RR, since he has been involved in disputes like this before. Thus, I didn't warn him. Also, I didn't warn him because his lack of edit summaries and use of an anonymous IP address disguised the fact that policy had been broken until the rule had already been violated. Note that his fourth revert is done through an IP. That says to me that he knew what he was doing was against policy. I have alerted him to this report after the fact. I also warned him repeatedly before the fact to stop reverting, although I was unaware that he was nearing and had violated 3RR. See these messages, both of which were responded to as well as followed by reverts [67] and [68].

This edit represents a dispute that had been going on about adding the business program. Jack had reverted this several times earlier. The last one was here. On the same day, he started another revert war by reverting here a version of the lead which had been discussed by more than one editor as being preferred. After that was changed back on the same day he reverted here (another dispute over adding some history info, he had reverted this statement several times as well, as evidenced here) and here (another intro revert). It was changed back and he reverted under an IP address here. You can tell that it is him because he uses it minutes earlier to edit his user page. I used my third revert to try and restore the consensus version and he reverts yet again. All in all, I believe that is five reverts in one day (Nov 13 by my clock). This isn't the first time he's done this sort of thing with the Brigham Young University article either. I really feel he needs to be blocked for a short while in order to learn not to use reverts as a first step in negotiation. It is difficult to pinpoint his reverts because he often doesn't write an edit summary. Wrad 17:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the full protection, but no matter how you look at it he violated 3RR and needs to be blocked. A lot of edit-warring could have been averted if he had simply followed this policy. He will continue to violate this policy unless he is blocked or warned by someone who carries some weight. I know this guy. The answer for him is always, revert, revert, revert, despite what I've tried to tell him. Wrad 00:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note. Mercury 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like good advice to me! Wrad 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Polaron reported by User:Nyttend (Result:Page Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 00:01, 28 October 2007

1st revert: 16:18, 14 November 2007
- This is not a revert. --Polaron | Talk 20:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd revert: 17:08, 14 November 2007
3rd revert: 17:39, 14 November 2007
4th revert: 19:23, 14 November 2007

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: 19:23, 14 November 2007

Polaron believes that the article on the West Rutland CDP should be redirected to West Rutland, Vermont. Despite my arguments to the contrary, and my warning (to my knowledge, done before the fourth reversion; my last edit was done at 19:21) of a 3RR was ignored. I'm an administrator, but I'm not dealing with this myself because I'm party to the dispute. Nyttend 19:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remind both parties not to edit war. Please discuss this. Mercury 23:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spookee reported by User:Unprovoked (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 14 November 2007

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: 10:09 15 November 2007

The user keeps adding controversial edits and is unwilling to discuss them on the talk page. Numerous users have reverted his additions, and he claims (only in the edit history) that there is an attempt to supress his information. He has been given reasons why he should discuss his edits on the talk page and in the history, and has also been pointed to the 3RR and to the electrosensitivity page which deals with his "information". These are only the most recent four reverts of this same information. Several times he has removed other good additions to the article also.Unprovoked 12:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a breach of the 3RR to exist four reverts have to take place within 24 hours. #1 and #4 have more than 24 hours between them, so there is no breach. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - per 3rr:
"Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive."

KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is at the discretion of the admin handling the report whether to block, taking into account all the circumstances. Most administrators dislike the 'reporting side' in a 3RR report from pressuring them into a block. Some consider it disruptive. You should look to resolve your dispute by talking and not by getting the other side blocked. -- Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Proxy_User reported by User:Gscshoyru (Result: 48 hours/Semi-pro)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [69]

1st revert: [70]
2nd revert: [71]
3rd revert: [72]
4th revert: [73]

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: [74]

(Not actually a warning, but it is mentioned.)

User is repeatedly adding POV tags to the article, yet refuses to explain why. We've asked what he thinks is POV'd, yet he refuses to explain, and re-adds the tags as we've removed them because we don't know what the issue is. Note that one of the reverts is made by an IP, but that ip is "obviously" the user -- see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/WiccaWeb. Gscshoyru 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for forty-eight hours; article semi-protected for two weeks. -- tariqabjotu 22:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tilting their heads slightly to the left reported by User:Gscshoyru (Result: 1 day)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [75]

1st revert: [76]
2nd revert: [77]
3rd revert: [78]
4th revert: [79]

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: [80]

User has repeatedly added non-notable information to this article, and continues to claim notability even though you can't even find the guy in google. Gscshoyru 14:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blocked for 1 day. Ronnotel 15:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And indefinitely by me. A textbook example of internet troll. Duja► 15:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gscshoyru reported by User:Gscshoyru (Result:no violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [81]

1st revert: [82]
2nd revert: [83]
3rd revert: [84]
4th revert: [85]

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: DIFFTIME

Silly billy keeps reverting me. Tilting their heads slightly to the left 15:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... seems you copy/pasted my report? All the diffs are of you, not me. Gscshoyru 15:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was a bit lazy. Tilting their heads slightly to the left 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see above Ronnotel 15:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:87.198.128.38 reported by User:CounterFX (Result:1 week)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: (see below)

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: 18:52, 16 November 2007

User obstinately reverts to a months-old version of the page without any justification. I have not bothered finding the precise version of the page, but it is one which pre-dates the conclusion of the Brian Reddyb controversy. -- CounterFX (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One week as an obvious sockpuppet of a banned user; no indication that it is a dynamic IP address. -- Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muntuwandi reported by 222.155.53.237 (Result: No violation; semi-pro)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Mutuwandi's reverts

1st revert: [87]
2nd revert: [88]
3rd revert: [89]

Below are 5 reverts belonging to 222.155.xx.xxx, reported by The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

1st revert: 06:24, 16 November 2007

2nd revert: 06:34, 16 November 2007

3rd revert: 21:43, 16 November 2007

4th revert: 21:22, 16 November 2007

~~5th revert: 22:39, 16 November 2007~~

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: DIFFTIME

'Important note to reviewing admin: contrary to the misleading title, the diffs actually describe a violation by anon IP 222.xxx.xxx.xxx, not the other way around. Interesting bit of vandalism, this one.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdrake, that was my fault. I replaced the list of 3 reverts with a more through list of 5 reverts by the 222.155.xx.xxx, thinking that the complaint was against our anon friend. I have since stricken my confusing edits. But needless to say, 222.155.xx.xxx is just as guilty of 3RR violation here, if not more so.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muntuwandi has been bannded numerous times for edit warring and reverting, further warnings are pointless. 222.155.53.237 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:I added some more diffs and could have added still more (IP-hopping edit warrior, but obviously the same person). A range block would be preferable.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC) I was confused. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I note it hasn't even been 2 weeks since Muntuwandi was last blocked for 3RR Violations. --222.155.53.237 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ip is a suspected sock of User:Nordic Crusader an indef blocked user. Muntuwandi (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, Muntuwandi's 3 reverts should be considered as reverting simple vandalism.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false report by a banned sock puppet who has a vendetta agains Muntuwandi. He once said to me how much he hates him. I'll try to find that in my talk history, but it would take a while. If it's needed, I'll do it, but I'm not wasting anymore time on this sock abuse than I have already. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 23:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there are alot of people who hate Muntuwandi. --222.155.41.78 (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raul654 reported by User:UBeR (Result: No violation)

One-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 00:50, 15 November 2007

1st revert: 15:31, 15 November 2007
2nd revert: 01:01, 16 November 2007

On global warming, some have decided to issue a 1RR for one particular sentence found in the lede.[90] This is the result of various, long, and contentious edit wars over the phrase. Raul654 violated that decision and has instead decided to (start another) edit war. He has been previously blocked for edit warring on the same article (and same phrase).[91][92] UBeR (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely reluctant to block anyone for 1RR that hasn't been enforced by the community or ArbCom. The diffs you show were from almost 24 hours ago so it seems punitive to take any action now anyway. I'll go and have a word with Raul. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly beg to differ. The edit warring on the particular sentence continues (around 13 reverts to that sentence alone in the past 48 hours), and according to User:William M. Connolley and others, the community consensus was to protect that sentence with 1RR, because the entire article just came off full protection due to edit warring over the very sentence and many other past instances of edit warring over the same sentence, in which Raul654 is continuously an edit warrior. And now again we have to go through the same, long, contentious debates on the talk page (which Raul654 conveniently ignores and instead chooses to edit war). Raul654's reluctance to own his obvious mistakes and failure to understand how Wikipedia disputes are handled since his last block over the same issue gives every indication that he should be blocked again, and continuously so for each violation until he understands that edit warring is not acceptable behavior. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note for everyone to see, Raul654 has inappropriately blocked the person with whom he is edit warring for 1 week[93] and inappropriately fully protected his talk page without merit.[94] His stated reason was vandalism, but as I explained to Raul654, that is clearly counter to our policy on vandalism. There should be absolutely zero tolerance for this type of behavior. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is Uber trying to substitute his own definition of vandalism for what policy actually says, but he seems to be of the belief that everything is subjective and that whether-or-not an edit is true has no bearing on whether it can be considered vandalism. (In other words, he's the ultimate believer in truthiness). This would seem to call into question his ability to judge vandalism, or anything else. Raul654 (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy logic, at the very best. From Raul654's very own diff, edits are only vandalism if they are "deliberate attempt[s] to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." This is obviously a content dispute. From the policy page, being bold, non-neutral opinions, misinformation, nonsense, and being stubborn are NOT vandalism. In no way, shape, or form is Raul654 reverting vandalism. He is engaging in an editor war, making tendentious edits, being disruptive, and clearly violated the community 1RR placed on that sentence. He should be punished appropriately, taking into consideration his past edit warring on the same article and same sentence. Also note his inability to address his inappropriate block on the user with whom he is engaging in an edit war with and fully protecting his page inappropriately and indefinitely. Raul654's behavior is a serious problem and should be duly censured by the powers that be. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uber now seems to think that just because he says something repeatedly and forcefully, that makes it true. The facts of the matter are that Odedium was adding statements that are objectively false, using a misleading edit summary, that he has a history of doing this, and that he's been repeatedly warned for it by multiple people (by 3 different admins on different occasions). And while Uber's statement makes it clear that "facts" and "evidence" don't really matter to him because, after all, it's all subjective to him - they do matter to the rest of us. Raul654 (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is bad, very bad. Wikipedia is embarassing, and it's more and more because of the "upper class". It's not the vandals anymore, but the abuse of power that is making more and more trolls. Intelligent people can see this hypocrisy. "Positions of trust"? Oh wow... The more I learn here, the more I wish I never came here. (I guess I'll be on some kind of list for sure now after espressing my disgust...again)~Jeeny ^(talk) 03:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had this complaint been made Thursday, I probably would have protected the article. However, since things have died down a bit, I'll refrain from doing so. I also am apprehensive about blocking someone for violating a one-revert rule instituted by anyone other than ArbCom. -- tariqabjotu 05:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second revert occurred on 16 November 2007. This report was filed on 16 November 2007. It's difficult to predict violations of policies the day before they occur. The spirit of the policy should be about whether there was tendentious editing, ignoring community-sanctioned rules, and whether the user disregarded the dispute resolution process in preference of edit warring--not whether the report was filed the day before the violation occured or whether it was reported one hour or two hours after it occurred. Please reconsider. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the edit war continues and heatedly so.[95] I believe you are every bit wrong, Tariqabjotu. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your condescending tone is not appreciated; there was no reason for you to link to four policies in one short paragraph, as if linking to them would somehow make you more correct. Raul has violated no policy and there was no tendentious editing, "tendentious editing, ignoring community-sanctioned rules, or disregard for "the dispute resolution process in preference of edit warring", at least on Raul's part (I'll be commenting on this further at the RfC shortly).

And my comment about protecting the article was not in reference to protecting the article from Raul, but rather protecting the article in the midst of an ongoing edit war (had someone pointed out the edit warring at the article on Thursday or, depending on the time zone, early Friday). Obviously, I was not expecting you to report a violation that hadn't occurred yet, much in the same way it is ridiculous for you declare me "every bit wrong" based on an edit that occurred after my first comment. Even still, I'm standing by what I said earlier; unless I see the situation seriously ramp up again (beyond just one issue out of the blue), I see no reason to protect the article. For a topic as controversial as this one, the current conditions are rather calm. -- tariqabjotu 08:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to be condescending, and apologize if that is how you took it to be. I'm simply mean to disagree with you where I clearly think your opinions are misguided. I also do not mean to link to policies to suggest that I may be more correct, but to clarify what policies I'm referring to, and also so they're available for reference; this is a habit of mine and not meant to be patronizing. I also considered you to be every bit wrong both because of your opinion that there's no violation of the spirit of WP:3RR/WP:EW and that the edit warring has stopped and will stop. Nor is this "out of the blue." Raul654 has a previous history of edit warring on the article and the sentence, and has been blocked for it. This is common issue, not a randomly occurring one. It should be addressed appropriately--not shrugged off. And yes, calling and reverting edits "vandalism" where they are not vandalism is tendentious editing. The principles of resolving disputes has been ignored by Raul654 in favor edit warring. It's clear and should not be tolerated. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Out of the blue" was in reference to the recent revert to which you linked at 7:20 (UTC). I have nothing more to say about Raul except what I said on the RfC; you are exaggerating his actions, for sure. So, his actions have been addressed appropriately – by shrugging them off. -- tariqabjotu 09:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the diff, it too is not "out of the blue." This edit war has been going on for days, 1 revert at a time (barring Raul654's violation), but more fervently so prior to the full-protection and even more so in the previous edit wars in which Raul654 was involved (and this will continue, I ensure you). I believe your mischaracterizations of events as of late is unfortunate and detrimental, and it is a shame you act so callously in the face of abuse. ~ UBeR (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you've ceded my observation regarding the article. Perhaps you see now I'm not here just talking out of my ass. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:85.178.151.155 reported by User:Beh-nam (Result:Page Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:39, 7 November 2007

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: 19:24, 16 November 2007

He's been edit warring on several articles, mainly this one. I've repeatedly asked him to use the talk page but he refuses to discuss things there. I gave him the 3RR warning and shortly after he was RV'ing again. Behnam (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behnam is also edit warring in cooperation with 82.83.134.144 (which is banned User:Tajik). see Timurid dynasty, Timur, Great Seljuq Empire. They also violated in (Persian) cooperation the 3RR. If one looks at my edits and not only on formalisms like 3RR , one can see that Behnam and 82.83.134.144 vanadalise the articles. They delete made references (see Timur), they give information in articles that the referenced source does not give (see Timurid dynasty) and they ignore my contribution on the talk page and tell me, that I have to talk [96]. 85.178.151.155 (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I hope this edit war will stop here and now. I am not going to block anyone at this time, please discuss thoroughly before editing. _{Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. Une message de Nat de Wikipédia Anglaise} 00:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:A Man In Black reported by User:MalikCarr (Result: Page Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 02:44

1st revert: 03:17
2nd revert: 01:20
3rd revert: 02:19
4th revert: 02:42
5th revert: 02:45

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: Unnecessary, user is an administrator and has violated 3RRV before.

A Man In Black continues his edit war against established project consensus on articles edited by yours truly. There is currently an ongoing RfM to address the months-long edit war, but cooler heads have not prevailed once again. As a suggestion, since the same articles are still being reverted since June, perhaps page protection is in order? MalikCarr (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MalikCarr continues reverting any edit I make to "his" articles, and feels entitled to three reverts to remove {{in-universe}} whenever it is added or any infobox that doesn't meet his personal approval, regardless of what edits he bulldozes in the process. Look at how many times he's come to 3RR having reverted the article himself three times and consider whether he's trying to quell a dispute or just get people who disagree with him blocked while using all of the reverts he feels entitled to. This system is being gamed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Man In Black reverts any edits made to this article not made by him or the sockpuppet anonymous user GundamsRus (talk · contribs) - if there's any WP:OWN accusations to be made, they aren't in my camp. MalikCarr (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this accusing game is fun. First GundamsRUS is a vandal harassing you and Jtrainor for some dispute in another article. Now he's my sockpuppet! Please do share some more spurious accusations, they're quite entertaining. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have never accused GundamsRus of being your sockpuppet - he's just a sockpuppet of an anonymous editor in general.

2. I see you're removed your accusation of Jtrainor being my sockpuppet - isn't there a policy on not removing comments on noticeboards or talk pages? At any rate, you're an administrator, why don't you use your powers for good and run a checkuser? You'll find Jtrainor, L-Zwei, Mythsearcher, Kyaa the Catlord and plenty of other WP:GUNDAM members, which you've all accused of being me in some form or other at some point, are not, in fact me.

3. GundamsRus -is- a vandal if you believe that edit wars are disruptive, and trawling users' contributions pages for articles to disrupt is vandalism. That happens to be my interpretation of policy, and it's clear that, as with many things, we disagree.

4. Regardless, you and GundamsRus continue to violate 3RRV - there is no room for interpretation of that fact.

MalikCarr (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the comment about JT being your sock, because, while it was obviously and intentionally spurious, I realized it could easily be taken as not a joke by someone who wasn't familiar with the situation, and make me look paranoid and clueless.

By the way, have you linked an example of a vandalistic edit by GRUS anywhere? People keep asking you, and you keep failing to come up with any.

That doesn't have anything to do with you gaming 3RR and feeling entitled to three reverts to protect any article you own from edits you don't approve of, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you've already decided that I've been violating policy. If you're going to fly the line about "being entitled to three reverts", why haven't you been chastising GundamsRus about it? Or yourself, for that matter? Or hey, instead of continuing a revert war while a Request for Mediation is underway, wait and see what happens with that? Of course not - everyone who disagrees with your edits is a troll or obstructionist or fan. My mistake. The pot's calling the kettle black, and I'm being generous to your motivations with that analogy. MalikCarr (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, A Man In Black (talk · contribs) has also violated 3RR here as well. Posting another report would be superfluous at this point. MalikCarr (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Seriously, grow up people, I sugest you both discuss this 1)somewhere else 3RR is not meant to be ANI that is why ANI or your talk pages exist 2) be more civil with each other 3) If the old consensus doesn't work discuss not edit war 4) if you guys continue, I will not hesitate to take further action even if one of you is a sysop. Regards, Avec nat | Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 03:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bardhylius reported by User:TheFEARgod (Result:Page protected for 1 week and User:Bardhylius and User:TheFEARgod both blocked for edit waring.)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:21, 17 November 2007

User active for more than a year so no reason for 3RR notice.

User removes sourced text, which (apparently only he) disputes. He tries to discuss, but his arguments amount to trolling. TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:05, 17 November 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] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--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.-->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*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]

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

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

^ See King, chapter 10, p. 76

[1] See King, chapter 10, p. 76

[1]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards