Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yankees10 (talk | contribs) at 02:32, 27 April 2008 (→‎User:Yankees10 reported by User:67.137.0.28 (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveprotected

    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. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:Light Defender reported by IP Editor 87.XXX (Result: Page protected)


    This is only one example, the editor is trying to systematically remove any evidence that a musical is not endorsed by the band take that - he is removing material sourced to the times (a reliable source) from multiple articles. (I am a dynamic ip which is why I'm listed as 87.xxx.xxx 87.114.150.200 (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    PhilKnight has protected the article (expires 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)). Netsnipe has also protected article Gary Barlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), (expires 11:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC))). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pia L reported by User:TheSeven (Result:12H )


    I believe that Pia L's reverts fall under justifiable reverts, see Talk:Christopher Gillberg where she discusses what may be the addition of libel by TheSeven who also appears to have tried to provoke Pia L into reverting four times.--Berig (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pia L claims libel as justification for reverting, but each allegedly-libelous edit is obviously not libelous.
    As an example, Pia L claimed that including the article in the category "Scientific Misconduct" was libelous. First, this seems untenable on any grounds. Second, Gillberg was formally accused of scientific fraud; there have been three article about this in the British Medical Journal as well as a one-hour documentary on the main Swedish TV network, and tens of article in the Swedish press. Gillberg was acquitted of fraud, but some people believe him to be guilty. Gillberg was criminally convicted for refusing to turn over evidence. Obviously someone interested in the subject of scientific misconduct might want to know about Gillberg. I pointed this, and more, on the Talk page. Pia L continued reverting.
    Also, the claim that I was trying to "provoke" Pia L is silly. Indeed, the first time that she violated 3RR, I just warned her. This is her second time. I certainly dislike her large wholesale reverts with obviously-bogus justification though. The above example with the category is indicative.
    If Pia L is going to claim one of the exemptions for 3RR, then she ought to be able to explicitly give an example of an edit that validly qualifies. She has failed to do so.
    TheSeven (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two examples that validly qualify were given here [[1]]: Your edits were reverted because they introduced false statements into a WP:BLP. I also disagree with the statement that scientists who are aquitted of scientific misconduct should be labeled "allegedly guilty" because "some people" still believe it to be so. Pia (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those examples were obviously bogus, as I replied [2]. So Pia L first gives the example with the category (summarized above). This fails. Then he gives two more examples, which also fail. Having several failed examples does not make one valid example. This is a Pia L tactic: keep talking, coming up with new excuses when the prior ones do not work.
    Also, Pia L uses the phrase "allegedly guilty", in quotes above, as though quoting someone: I cannot find that phrase in either the article or anything I said. TheSeven (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your statement about turning over "evidence" is misleading. Please present reliable sources for you claim. There was no "independent investigation" or any kind of "scientific investigation" for that matter that would require evidence to be presented. As a matter of fact, the persons who were granted access under the Public Access law were acting as a private individuals, with no approved research proposal and no task approved by or prompted by the Science Council or the Ethics Council whatsoever. This amounts to something close to "access for hobby purposes". It's true that Gillberg himself called upon the University Principal to request external reviewers at an earlier stage, when the 8 month long investigation was going on, but the university chose to oppose the request at that point, because they preferred to instead wait for the outcome of the Ethical Council's review. And we know that result: allegations dismissed. Pia (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Pia L continues to revert: 19:45, 22 April 2008. TheSeven (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC) This revert also included the category-revert that I described above.[reply]

    I hope that WP administrators will see what happened above. I accuse Pia L of violating 3RR. Pia L claims to justify his reverts on the ground that the edits were libelous. I argue that the edits were Not libelous, and I ask Pia L for an example of an edit that is libelous. Pia L keeps talking.
    But there is still no example.
    TheSeven (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pia L blocked for 12 hours. - Philippe 23:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was blocked for violating 3RR while removing non-factual and damaging statements in a biography of a living person? The false statement: "The controversy concerns alleged scientific misconduct and the willful destruction of research data on the part of Professor Gillberg in order to avoid outside scientific scrutiny". User:TheSeven finally admitted that the statement is indeed false [3] and writes: "Your point 1, above, was valid; I corrected the article" [4]. Please note that this was only after reverting my removal of the false information 3 times. I have repeatedly explained my actions: WP:BLP policy states that removal of false statements are justified, but I was blocked while this case was still pending over at BLP noticeboard. The issue is not new: it has previously been to arbitration (August of 2006) [5], and since that time, the article has remained stable - up until 15 April 2008, when the same non-factual sentence was reinsterted again by anonymous users, using a blog as a source [6]. The problem is still partially there in the article, and it introduces a troubling POV-slant for a BLP article, which I have explained on the talk page[7] repeatedly, and also above. Please note that my forth edit [8] "replaced questionable sources with original sources, removed misconduct tag", and was not a revert to the version of March 12 by User:WhatamIdoing. It was done to introduce a NPOV source (British Medical Jornal), to replace the docudrama in the lead, which is unsuitable as it consists of interviews with the three adversaries of Gillberg's and therefore cannot be anything but pure speculations as to the motivation of the persons who shredded the documents. This was also explained on the talk page.[9]. Pia (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Pia's claim about a "questionable source", the source is a one-hour documentary (apparently similar to "60 minutes" in the USA) on Sweden's leading (and public) TV network, SVT. So again, Pia's justification fails. Worse, Pia used this excuse to continue reverting after I filed notice of 3RR violation.
    Regarding Pia's fifth revert (not fourth, as he claims above), this too did not remove anything that could be libelous, as required for 3RR exemption.
    TheSeven (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ultramarine reported by User:Giovanni33 (Result: Not a 3RR issue)

    • Previous version reverted to: [10]


    [Guatemalan Civil War]

    See talk page for edit warring against consensus: [11]

    [Church Committee]

    See talk page for edit warring against consensus:[12]

    [1954 Guatemalan coup d'état]

    See talk page for edit warring against consensus:[14][15]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: This is an experienced user who regularly issues 3RR warnings to those who he is edit warring with. He has received already 5 separate 3RR violation blocks in the past. He knows better but has never stopped edit warring, instead games the system.
    • Comment:This is not a technical violation of 3RR but clearly gaming the system to edit war. He is guilty of edit warring across many articles for example also see: [16] He will revert 3 times and then wait, and start over. This has been going on for months. Editor has not convinced any of the many editors on the talk page about the validity of these insertions. See: [17] He ignores consensus and continues to edit war until editors get tired and leave. Also violates WP:TE and WP:OWN. Since he doesn't stop after being asked to by many editors, asking for a Rfc, etc, a block for chronic edit warring across many articles over this material is in order.
    • About the material: The Ferguson quote from Telegraph- it is not actually from an historical examination of Guatemalan history. It is from an op-ed piece specifically directed at the Nobel prize acceptance speech of Harold Pinter, that has been shown to be false. User thinks this little quip from Ferguson is so important that it should go into several articles where there is neither evidence of commentary by Pinter nor evidence of any source making the claim that the U.S. is culpable of all 200,000 deaths. He has inserted the same quote in this civil war article, in Foreign Policy of the United States, in 1954 Guatemalan Coup D'etat, had formerly inserted it into Allegations of States Terrorism Committed by the United States, and Church Committee and elsewhere. The Polity Data information is inserted in pretty much the same places too despite it being problematic and of tenuous relevance.
    Giovanni, for Guatemalan Civil War your latter three reverts are from over a week ago. For Church Committee, your last four reverts are from nearly twenty days ago. Also many of your links do not show the removal or addition of the same disputed content, instead there are many different edits. As there was no three-revert-rule violation by Ultramarine, this would be a matter for the Administrator's Noticeboard, not here. If there was disruption by Ultra it would be better dealt with there, although this sounds perilously close to asking for administrator intervention in a content dispute. Dance With The Devil (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, under WP:3RR, it doesn't have to be the same content, and it can be enforced under the spirit of the rule rather than the letter⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as I wanted to make clear the user reverts up to three times, then often waits a week--after arguing in circles on talk--and then even if he has not convinced anyone--goes back to edit warring. As I said, its been on going for months. See the US terrorism article: same material, same edit war, same issue. Its the same pattern. Not respecting consensus, and gaming the system (in a smarter way than just waiting to one hour after 24 hours). The violation is still the same. Its chronic edit warring by reverting beyond standards of reasonableness, and I believe this fits in with WP:TE, and WP:OWN. I am concerned that this has continued too long and is causing disruption to improvement of many articles. I just want an admin to act here to stop it. Ultra is doing this because he thinks he can get away with it. If he is rebuked I think he will stop.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's never really been established where to report edit warring that doesn't fall under 3RR, though I am personally of the opinion it should be done here. Thus, I don't consider Giovanni's posting this here unreasonable in and of itself (saying nothing about the validity of the report). Not going to process this report myself because I'm concerned about possible bias on my part. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a 3RR issue - 3RR isn't a license to game the system or to edit war up to three times daily. But this noticeboard is for resolving 3RR complaints, not addressing all issues of edit warring. There are other aspects of the dispute resolution process better suited to handle this - mediation, a request for comment, or a third opinion may be helpful, but this is beyond the scope of the 3RR rule. --B (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be appropriate for resolving content disputes, but I brought there here specifically due to gaming the system and edit warring. Even though a technical violation of 3RR did not occur, its a clear pattern of edit warring and gaming the system the violates the spirit of the 3RRrule. Thus it is a problem for this board. We had all five different editors comment and disagree with this user (and none agree with him)-- and that had no effect on his intransigence--will a "third" opinion change anything? He pledged and will continue to edit war no matter what anyone thinks since he disregards consensus. The only thing that will make a difference is that if someone credibly informs him that repeated edit warring and gaming of the system will result in increasingly longer blocks. That is what is needed in this case. I also note that the user did go though ArbCom for "sterile edit warring" and part of their ruling stated that if he were to "persist in sterile revert warring, admins may block them for a short period (up to a week) for each revert." I'm not sure that arbom ruling applies today, but I think it should as this is exactly very sterile edit warring.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you link to the arbcom case? If it is still in effect, WP:AE is the place to go for arbitration enforcement, but I'll at least take a look at it. --B (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding my prior arbcom case, see [18]. Only applied to Democratic peace theory. Those involved also thereafter solved this and produced a version all agreed on. I have not been blocked for anything for more than 2 years. On the other hand, please note that Giovanni33 is on a 1R per week for edit warring. Check out his block log. Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)Ultramarine (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what my block has has to do with your edit warring Ultra. Its a red-herring and ad-hominen. What is relevant is that despite this notice you have continued your sterile edit war:08:52, 23 April 2008 Perhaps your response will be to list the block logs of all the other editors with whom you keep reverting? I note its several editors (basically everyone who doesn't agree with you, while you have not been able to convince a single other editor---yet you keep reverting?). Do you see a problem with this behavior? Doing 3 reverts, waiting a week, followed by another three reverts, and so on...is sterile edit warring and tendentious editing. Perhaps arbcom enforcement needs to weigh in on this question (although I think given the violation of the spirit of 3RR, its actionable here, too).Giovanni33 (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed findings of fact only talks about the democratic peace article: [19] Nothing else. It is you have been repeatedly edit warring and violating your arbcom ruling as can be seen in your block log. You recently came very close to being permanently banned for suspected use of sockpuppets.Giovanni33 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I have not. Recently Giovanni33 has started wikistalking me and reverting my edits in several articles he has never edited before. Regarding the other editors reverting me on the page Giovanni33 now cites BernardL also has never edited the article before but has a long history of editing similarly with Giovanni33 on other pages. DrGabriela is another editor with a very short edit history who have recently also started wikistalking me. The only long time editor is Cronos1. He disagreed with me regarding if material should be deleted but complimented me here for adding opposing views: [20] Regardless, to resolve this I will now only add disputed tags and invite Giovanni33 and others interested to mediation.Ultramarine (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.121.221.174 and User:65.170.159.12 reported by User:Idag (Result: No violation)



    Note: These two IPs are sockpuppets of the same user. Idag (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, please, please do a sock-puppet check so you can tell that I'm not the same person as 65.170.159.12 or that banned Edward guy. Idag is so desperate to "win" that he's mixing different people's edits together to add them up past the 3RR limit. I checked on 65.170.159.12's talk page and saw that he or she was warned not to violate 3RR and stopped short. Likewise, I'm not violating 3RR. Idag is gaming the system. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What a coincidence that 65's anonymous IP switched right as he hit his fourth edit and the new IP is making the same exact edits as 65. The edits being made are disruptive and are going against the consensus for the article (every other editor of the Ayn Rand article has had to revert these edits at least once by now). Idag (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation - the previous version reverted to is a verstion after the reverts taken place, so it is not clear that #1 is a revert. Then there are three reverts by one IP and two by another. No rules broken here and there is no evidence to connect the two IPs. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.36.92.161 reported by User:LtPowers (Result: 24 hours)

    User:Mr. Voice reported by User:HiDrNick (Result: indef sock block)

    Continued edit waring after 3RR warning. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 20:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:One last pharaoh reported by User:GHcool (Result: Both blocked 12 hours)

    The editor kept edit warring after a 3RR warning. He refused to use the talk page. --GHcool (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both editors blocked – for a period of 12 hours During the 24-hour period starting 23:53 UTC on 22 April, I count four reverts by each editor. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jacurek reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 48 hours)


    User:John celona reported by User:Enigmaman (Result: No violation)


    Continued edit-warring on several articles, including this one, even after warning. User ignores warnings and expects others to follow the 3RR rule, but does not feel it applies to him. The issue at hand is that the user in question wants to add numerous articles to the Category:American criminals. He has edit-warred on at least four articles that I count, all with the same attempt to add articles to that category. Enigma message Review 01:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples: Billy Preston, Eugene Hasenfus, Bob Taft, Billy Cannon. This editor's contribution log is rife with this behavior. David in DC (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: I myself have not seen a strict 3RR violation from this editor; however, I have warned him about gaming 3RR and that his overall pattern of editing may be considered disruptive. Having expressed some opinions myself on how this debacle should proceed I am unwilling to block him myself, but if another Admin were to take a different view of his behaviour, I wouldn't wheel-war. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's not all of it. I checked the user's contributions further, and I found numerous other articles. I can't seem to find constructive contributions. I've never seen an account as devoted to edit-warring as this one. Note: Was blocked for 24 hours in May 2007. Enigma message Review 01:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look at [21]. Enigma message Review 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll review his contributions, but he didn't violate 3rr here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC) It seems you have both been doing it, and you appear to be block shopping rather than hanging in there with the RfC/ WP:Dispute resolution. Additionally, you need to stop using rollback to revert him, otherwise someone may take the privilege away. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I was not involved in the situation at all until I warned both sides for edit-warring on an article. To be quite blunt, you are absolutely wrong. In fact, I have not edit-warred at all. I simply reverted his latest edits for blatant edit-warring. Enigma message Review 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Deacon is absolutely RIGHT. You are stepping into a dispute where one editor is repeatedly deleting 2 year old information on an article while an RFC is in progress, without waiting for consensus. John celona (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is absolutely irrelevant. You are edit warring, whether you claim to be restoring rightful long-standing information or not. See WP:edit war. Additionally, you are edit warring with numerous editors, not just one. Enigma message 14:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Amirkayani reported by User:Fullstop (Result: 12 hours)

    Five tendentious reverts in the last 24 hours. Has made no comments to relevant talk section.

    • 16:01, 24 April 2008 Amirkayani (Talk | contribs) (23,044 bytes) (Undid revision 207862041 by Raven in Orbit (talk))
    • 14:08, 24 April 2008 Amirkayani (Talk | contribs) (23,043 bytes) (Undid revision 207823492 by Raven in Orbit (talk))
    • 10:01, 24 April 2008 Amirkayani (Talk | contribs) (23,043 bytes) (Undid revision 207800453 by Fullstop (talk))
    • 06:59, 24 April 2008 Amirkayani (Talk | contribs) (23,043 bytes) (→Gakhar clans)
    • 19:35, 23 April 2008 Amirkayani (Talk | contribs) (23,042 bytes) (→Gakhar clans)

    ... ad nauseum. Diff between 16:26, 22 April 2008 and 16:01, 24 April 2008

    Editor's edits are exclusively the addition/re-addition of this and other directories. See also similar edits at Kayanis (Tribe).

    User:Navnløs reported by User:Anger22 (Result: 48 hours)

    Comment These are the four most recent reverts on this article. Since April the 21st User:Navnløs has revert 6 different editors a total of 7 times, all doing the same edit. Navnløs has also been repeating the same pattern of reverts across other articles including Cynic (band), Cannibal Corpse, Amon Armath, Opeth and many others. In some cases his reverts have been accompanied by a vandalism warning against the editors with differeing opinions for edits that clearly weren't vandalism at all. All the edits stem from the editor's dismissal of a discussion/consensus over a simple formatting issue. Navnløs was issued a 3RR warning on April 21. And todays recent revert happened after receiving yet another 3RR warning concerning 2 different articles. Navnløs' block log shows 4 previous blocks all for the same pattern of editing. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • 48 hours, stern warning. This is his 5th 3RR block in 6 months. --B (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HooperBandP reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Protected 2 weeks)

    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime not given; there is no one version reverted to; but there are 4 clear reverts


    • 1st revert: 2008-04-24T16:11:59 marked as revert Previous version reverted to: 2008-04-24T14:42. Removing "dubious" tag.
    • 2nd revert: 2008-04-24T18:25:07 paired diff; undoes previous editors addition Previous version reverted to: 2008-04-24T17:19. Removing "synthesis" and "weasel" tags.
    • 3rd revert: 2008-04-24T20:21:21 marked as revert Previous version reverted to same as for 2nd revert. Restores a sentence including "rejected the use of weapons" and "{{failed verification}}".
    • 4th revert: 2008-04-24T22:21:56 paired diff; rather oddly marked "not a revert", though it clearly is Previous version reverted to: 2008-04-24T21:30; restores a large amount of deleted text
    • Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-04-24T20:25:16 which the user removed [22]. I then re-warned them, not realised that the prev warning had been removed.
    I've added information (in italics) to this report and struck out the previous version reverted to, which is a broken link. Coppertwig (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article protected 2 weeks - there is plenty of edit warring all around. It looks like it was previously protected for a dispute but the issue was obviously never resolved. Protecting in lieu of blocking all involved. (Reminder: 3RR isn't a license to revert exactly 3 times.) --B (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - No three of my edits were on the same issue, and the editor in question iniated a edit war on the same page. All my edits were highly discussed on the talk page. I'm confident in my actions and I also agree in the protect. Hooper (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional Comment: It was User John Smith who warned on the first issue, though for bad faith reasons. Never did I receive a warning from a User Coppertwig. Do we have a sock puppet? Hooper (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:217.87.83.146 reported by User:Fnagaton (Result: 31 hours)

    • 5th and 6th reverts are after the 3RR warning. This ISP has a history of IP users repeatedly being disruptive on this same topic of binary prefixes. This ISP has also been linked to the banned users User:Sarenne and User:NotSarenne, the longer history of abuse is detailed at User:Fnagaton/SarenneSockPuppetReport. This user is likely to switch to another IP address in the same ISP so a temporary range block of the ISP may be needed. Fnagaton 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked 31 hours. If he hits it again from a different IP, let me know and I'll just s-protect it. --B (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your time and help. I will have to get some sleep soon but I will keep an eye on the situation and post a message on your talk page if someone editing from a similar IP starts editing in violation of the block. Fnagaton 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ThomHImself reported by User:Baegis (Result: 24 hours)

    This editor has caused wanton disruption over a variety of articles. This is his 2nd 3rr report in 3 days. He is falsely doing this under BLP guidelines, even though he brought the issue up on the BLP Noticeboard and several editors told him that his claims were invalid. He also has a classic COI because he has worked extensively with the person in question. Can someone please do something? Baegis (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a source in the article where Robert J. Marks II invokes the No free lunch in search and optimization theorem? If so, it's a 3RR violation. If not, this it is removal of "unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons". --B (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all the massive deletions by the above named editor, I can't tell for sure. However it is clear that Marks is an ID proponent as the working paper I listed is using the idea of No Free lunch and applying it to intelligent design, especially considering that the lab in question has strong ties to the ID movement. Baegis (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that he has been edit warring to remove trace of this individual's association with ID, but in this one case, he is correct. If Marks has not used that theorem to defend ID, then saying that he has is wrong. Some IDers use the theorem. Marks is an IDer. But those two facts alone don't mean that Marks has used the theorem or even heard of it. --B (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The paper I listed is coauthored by Marks and it uses the NFL theorem. It is also used to further the idea of intelligent design, by at least one of the authors for sure. Baegis (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I see - I misunderstood you. Blocked 24 hours. --B (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.47.222.230 reported by User:NE2 (Result: 1 month )

    This is a slightly complicated case; it consists of 75.47.x.x (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x) continually restoring official names of freeways that are not commonly used and do not appear on signs. As can be seen in the RFC, multiple users have tried to communicate and he will not respond. This specific case deals with two names: Barstow Freeway for I-215 and I-15 and Needles Freeway for I-40.


    • 1st revert: 20:27 (Needles)
    • 2nd revert: 21:14 (Needles)
    • 3rd revert: 21:38 (Barstow)
    • 4th revert: 22:02 (Barstow)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: he warned me at 21:40; I then told him that he'd also reverted thrice at 21:42.

    Comment: That's not a revert NE2 so what the heck it is all about? --75.47.222.230 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Every addition of a freeway name was a revert to an earlier version that included the name. --NE2 02:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:3RR, it is. --SmashvilleBONK! 02:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what the hell does that mean? --75.47.222.230 (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That you pretty clearly violated 3RR. --SmashvilleBONK! 02:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You sound like a NE2 supporter. NE2 has not even followed consensus since Rschen7754 said it. --75.47.222.230 (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NE2 also removed my edits the east and west directions i added such as SR 58, I-40 and SR 127.--75.47.222.230 (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The most recent edits by him in any of those articles were at least over a month ago. --SmashvilleBONK! 02:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know who NE2 is other than the guy who posted this. The only reason I even found it was a reverted a speedy deletion tag you made yesterday where you also blanked the article, so your talk page was on my watchlist. What I'm doing is supporting the facts, which are laid out above. --SmashvilleBONK! 02:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NE2 keeps following me around every time i edit articles he keeps reverting my edits all the time which is considered wikistalking.--75.47.222.230 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? It looks like he's a pretty big part of that Wikiproject. These look like they would be articles on his watchlist. --SmashvilleBONK! 02:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NE2 needs to stop reverting all my edits since he is doing it on U.S. Route 95 in California, Interstate 15 in California, Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California) and other articles. PhATxPnOY916 knows what i'm saying that NE2 has failed to follow consensus and NE2 keeps reverting his edits too which he is being asked by PhATxPnOY916 to stop asumming ownership of articles.--75.47.222.230 (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is irrelevant and not the proper forum. You have yet to give a legitimate reason for violating 3RR other than "he reverted my edits". --SmashvilleBONK! 03:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would endorse a long term block as this user has had blocks in the past - [23]. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reset it for one month based upon the RfC and the long-list of blocks elsewhere. But this IP will most likely jump elsewhere soon... seicer | talk | contribs 03:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brian A Schmidt reported by User:FellGleaming (Result: Warned )


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [28]

    My apologies if I performed the diffs improperly, as this is my first such report. However, the reverts are so close together they should be immediately apparent from the edit log. There was in fact a fifth revert done by this user, all within the space of a few minutes.

    Note – The last revert was at 02:51 and the 3RR warning was issued at 02:53, and there have been no further reverts since. While there is a vio. on the case of Brian A Schmidt, I am not blocking in the interest that both of you will take your pointless edit warring to the talk page, where it belongs. seicer | talk | contribs 06:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Colourinthemeaning reported by User:Amoruso (Result: Warning)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [29]

    To which he responded by saying he can break all rules because he disagrees: [30]

    He also violated 3RR on 3 other articles: Gilo, Neve Yaakov, Ramot at the same time. Amoruso (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned It's customary to report people only when they have reverted after receiving a warning. I am giving him a warning to remind him not to take WP:IAR too literally. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ed Fitzgerald reported by User:Childnicotine (Result: No violation)

    • Previous version reverted to: [31]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: Reported user has edited since 2005 and certainly knows of the rule

    Comment :43 and :44 were made in quick succession and form the same revert (they were each removing different parts of Childnicotine's previous edit). Leithp 09:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation Per WP:3RR: "Consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule." Therefore #2 and #3 are the same revert, there are only three reverts and no violation. Please also use the full article title when listing here in future rather than a redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ewenss reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: Declined)


    He removed the first with an edit summary: "LOL".

    Ewenss has shown unwillingness to thoroughly discuss his edits, and thinks it's easier to push his weight through edit warring. He argued with me on his talk page that he doesn't need to be held to the standards because he is an "expert" on the subject. Grsztalk 17:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation "2nd revert" is actually restoring of tag placed by user:Grsz themselves, so I don't think it counts into "edit warring" and definitely does not overweigh the edit warring of the two. Both are equally guilty here. `'Míkka>t 18:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sumerophile reported by User:Mikkalai (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    1. (cur) (last) 18:16, April 25, 2008 Sumerophile (Talk | contribs | block) (3,173 bytes) (Undid revision 208067415 by 4.233.116.148 (talk)) (undo)
    2. (cur) (last) 20:11, April 25, 2008 Sumerophile (Talk | contribs | block) (3,173 bytes) (Undid revision 208129861 by Mikkalai (talk) replace template clutter with appropriate portals, cats, etc.) (undo)
    3. (cur) (last) 20:46, April 25, 2008 Sumerophile (Talk | contribs | block) (3,263 bytes) (Undid revision 208137702 by 4.232.15.139 (talk) IP vandalism
    4. (cur) (last) 20:55, April 25, 2008 Sumerophile (Talk | contribs | block) (3,263 bytes) (Undid revision 208141410 by 206.148.196.18 (talk) revolving IP vandalism
    5. (cur) (last) 22:24, April 25, 2008 Sumerophile (Talk | contribs | block) (3,263 bytes) (Undid revision 208153420 by 76.237.11.134 (talk) template taking up page)
    6. Some other edits here during this time are essentially reverts as well.

    Please note that the edit summaries are wrong: it is not IP vandalism. It is content dispute.

    This user also wages revert wars in other pages: Hayasa-Azzi and Urartu, objecting Armenian editors who want to include them into (pre)history of Armenia.

    The user continues revert wars and ignores the suggestion to resolve the content dispute in talk pages. `'Míkka>t 17:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 72 hours User has two previous valid blocks for 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Postscript: After the above block, there were 13 IP edits adding and subtracting templates from the Nairi page, reverting one another. I semi-protected the page for one week, hoping to encourage Talk discussion as to the correct templates to use. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Landon1980 reported by User:Fair Deal (Result: Article protected)

    Comment This edit war broke out yesterday with User:Navnløs exceeding 3RR across several articles. Navnløs received a 48 hour block. Today User:Landon1980, a new user, has appeared on the scene to continue the edit war started by Navnløs. Landon1980 has ignored the talk page discussion and made accusations that the IP editors were using open proxies. A DNS search shows this to be untrue. a Warning for 3RR violation was issued to Landon1980 but after his fourth revert he blanked the warnings here claiming them to be irrelevant. Fair Deal (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision deferred pending checkuser - The odds of those IP addresses all being independent people is pretty close to the odds that I'm going to be elected President this fall. 142.177.76.36 (talk · contribs) and 142.163.22.182 (talk · contribs) are the same dial-up ISP. All of them but 99.251.226.121 (talk · contribs) are dial-up ISPs. So it's probably either the same person IP hopping or someone getting their friends to go in. I'm going to ask for two checkusers (1) to determine whether Landon1980 is a sock of the blocked Navnløs (talk · contribs) and (2) to determine whether our IP-hopping friend is a sock of Niderbib (talk · contribs). --B (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, a cursory review of the contributions of Landon1980 and Navnløs proves they are not socks. They have edited simultaneously on multiple occasions. --B (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser says everyone is unrelated. The IPs are obviously related in some fashion (sockpuppets or meatpuppets) ... but ... whatever. Article protected. --B (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Carl.bunderson reported by User:Tajik007 (Result: Tajik007 blocked as a sock of a banned user)

    This user is defying years of concensus and also scholarly sources which were provided on the talk page of the article. Also the user was advised to look at the Iran article's info-box and see for himself that it's the same language (since the user has no knowledge of this language). An admin noticed his senseless reverting and warned him about 3RR and right after that he made his 4th RV (3RR warning diff).

    Please note the following: I was recently blocked, then vindicated by the same admin, for 3rr on the talk page. I am defending the page from a sockpuppet, so I am not in violation of the 3rr. For a testimony by and admin of my good faith in face of 3rr cases on this page, see here. Tajik is taking the same position as SwatiAfridi took, and the similar change by Swati was reverted by admin Ryulong; Tajik is also a one-issue editor, and this page has frequently been the victim of sock-editing. Another detail arguing in favour of his being a sock is the fact that he delete's sinebot's addition of his sig and time to his talk edits--this has been a trope of Afghanistan-related socks. Consensus has been in my favour for a long time. This user is in violation of making contentious changes to a page without waiting for consensus to conform to his ideas. Both sides seem to have reasons for holding their positions. He also fails to mention that the user that warned me warned him as well, asnd that that user is not an admin as he (Tajik) maintains. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has nothing to support his edit so he just throws around accusations, I could just as easily accuse him of being a sockpuppet and revert his edits for that reason, but I am reverting as per scholarly sources and years of consensus. He has a record of edit warring just to have things his own way. The consensus has been for years on not only this article but others that this language is Persian. Carl.bunderson is making things up about the consensus being on his side, this can easily be seen by going back to versions a year ago. Also, scholarly sources were provided on the talk page that this language is indeed Persian, but he ignores them. In addition, he was pointed out to Iran's article where the info-box says "Jomhūrī-ye Eslāmī-ye Īrān", which is the same as "Jamhūrī-ye Islāmī-ye Afġānistān". Even though he has no knowledge of this language, he ignores the scholarly sources and obvious. Tajik007 (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter that he is not an admin, don't change the subject, what matters is that he warned about 3RR and you have been warned about it many times as seen by your block log. Tajik007 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments The user reporting the 3RR violation has also violated the 3RR rule on the same article and both users were warned by me. --SMS Talk 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks pretty obvious. If Tajik007 isn't a sock, he sure picked a bad name. --B (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What does it mean that I'm "not blocked pending checkuser", B? Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, I'm agreeing with you that Tajik007 is a sock of a banned user (exception to 3RR) and checkuser will confirm that. --B (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. I thought you meant the checkuser was on me, that was my confusion. Anyhow, thanks and have a good day. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:UnknownForEver reported by User:AI009 (Result: No blocks for now)

    • Previous version reverted to: [32]

    The user had concerns about sources and I added them. Yet he reverted. At first, I urged him to discuss, he complied but continues to add back unreferenced, biased material. Very unproductive behavior. Since I'm a newbie, I need help in this regard. I didn't add any biased material, yet the concerned user shows complete disregard. --AI009 (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [37]
    No blocks for now - It looks to be resolved now? The alternative is would be to block both of you since you both violated 3RR. (If the revert warring resumes, I will block both.) --B (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ada Kataki reported by User:Frédérick Duhautpas (Result: Page protected)

    • Previous version reverted to: [38]

    This user is deleting sourced material concerning an alternative name given to the genre in some other countries like France. He rejects this arguement and goes into edit waring because in some other countries this name is not used and he's arguing we're not in France...but his view is a local bias (his local perspective) and this bias goes against wikipedia's policy.


    I'm leaving the above as-is and presenting a modified version below:

    article Ethereal Wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (note captialization in article title); reverts by Ada Kataki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 04:25, 2 March 2008 for first revert, not identical; and 15:24, 25 April 2008 (reverted to exactly by reverts 2 to 5).

    Each revert by Ada Kataki deletes or Heavenly Voices and a reference by Alyz Tale, Stephane Leguay and Mario Glenade.

    Reverts by Frédérick Duhautpas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Previous version reverted to: 09:49, 18 April 2008

    Each revert restores the material mentioned above. Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PetraSchelm reported by User:AnotherSolipsist (Result: )


    "Consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule."--I reverted four separate changes (made today, by Another Solipsist) in consecutive reverts instead of one revert, but could easily have consolidated them into one revert. (No single change was reverted twice, let alone 3x.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: PetraSchelm, you misunderstand the meaning of "consecutive" in this context. When an editor does two edits and no other editor edits the article between those two edits, so that the two edits are listed consecutively in the page history, then those two edits are considered "consecutive" and are generally counted as one edit for 3RR. Your edits are not consecutive. Other editors edit between your edits, and each of your edits appears by itself, not immediately preceded or followed by another of your edits, in the page history. Therefore, to avoid violating 3RR you need to avoid doing any more reverts on that page until 24 hours after the first (or second) revert. If there are really 4 reverts, you might want to self-revert one of your edits back to the previous version so that you won't be violating 3RR. However, I have difficulty seeing the 1st "revert" as being a revert since the equivalent sentence doesn't exist in the earlier version. Perhaps an argument could be made that the word "people" is being used to mean the same or similar thing in the two versions even though the sentences are different. Note that 3RR does not allow more than three reverts on a page by an editor within a 24-hour period even if the reverts are all on different parts of the page. (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional information. (Third party comment - replacing my initial summary comment with this one that includes diffs)

    • Disclosure: I've made a variety of edits to the page over the last few days and have been active in the talk page discussions. Only one of my edits was a revert (plus two immediate self-reverts to discuss the proposed changes first).
    • The reported series of edits was part of an edit war that involved multiple editors on opposing sides of a dispute. It has since been resolved amicably, at least for the time being.
    • I concur with User:Coppertwig that the first listed diff in the report does not appear to be a revert, leaving only three.
    • User:PetraSchelm is new and has never seen a 3RR report before as far as I know. I alerted her to the 3RR policy a couple weeks ago and she's been careful to avoid edit warring. She may have had a misunderstanding of some of the policy, that's since been clarified by User:Coppertwig above. I'm sure she will take it to heart as she has shown herself to be a civil good-faith productive editor in the several weeks she's been working on the project.
    • The user who posted this 3RR report was a participant in the content dispute. He made more than three reverts within 24 hours, though without using the term "revert" in most of the edit summaries. The following list of diffs includes only the subset of his edits to that page during that 24 hours that involve reverting contested text:
    • I am not reporting these diffs to file a 3RR report against User:AnotherSolipsist, just for context and more complete record of both sides of the incident.
    • I recommend this report be closed with no preventive block against either editor. Involved editors have settled on a consensus solution for now and there's no edit warring in progress at this time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ed Fitzgerald reported by User:Childnicotine (Result:no action)

    • Previous version reverted to: [44]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: Reported user has edited since 2005 and certainly knows of the rule
    Comment, not all of Ed's reverts are consecutive, and therefore the three revert rule does not apply. Also, your changes have been challenged by at least one other editor, making this a content dispute that needs to be discussed on the talk page of the article. --clpo13(talk) 07:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, this appears to be an exact duplicate of a report above, which was dismissed. --clpo13(talk) 07:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response The result of the previous complaint (which dealt with the first four diffs provided) was a finding that the 2nd and 3rd edits were together one revert. In this instance, inspection of the fifth "revert" (which would be the fourth, if the 2nd and 3rd are one revert) will show that it's not a revert at all. None of the material posted was removed from the article. The "see also" link stayed, but was moved from a prominent position in the list to a less prominent one. The two references given, which had been attached to the "see also" link were moved to the section of the article which discussed the issue under question, where they more properly belonged. I also, in fact, added back in a category which had previously been deleted as aprt of my reversions, but which had been neglected to be restored. In short, rather than a reversion, I simply edited the article in a reasonable fashion.

    Further, I have to protest that neither in this instance nor in the previous one was I notified by the complaintant that he or she had filed here. The length of time I've edited on Wikipedia or my presumed knowledge of the 3RR rule is irrelevant, the notification of both a possible 3RR violation and the act of filing a complaint is a necessary part of the process and a matter of Wikipedian courtesy.

    Ironically, as I've tried to make clear, my editing in this instance has been in an attempt to help the complaintant add the material in a way that would be permanent and not reverted, as I tried to make clear on both the user's talk page [45] and the talk page of the article in question [46]. Clearly, I have been less than effective in putting my poitn across. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 08:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Ed Fitzgerald appears to have stopped reverting after becoming aware at 01:34, 26 April of this 3RR report. The 2nd and 3rd reverts are consecutive and can count as one. The 5th revert does not appear to me to count as a revert: it moves material, and it removes a name, but the removal of the name is (according to the edit summary) per BLP and therefore exempt from 3RR. However, there is an additional revert not listed above, at 21:01, 25 April 2008, so there are still four reverts within 24 hours. Although it's a nice courtesy to inform someone of a 3RR report, you should not expect such a notification, and I believe the usual practice on this noticeboard is that people can be blocked after violating 3RR if they have ever been notified of the existence of the rule. There was a suggestion in bold near the bottom of this thread at the Pump to change the policy to require warnings, but it didn't fly. On the other hand, since blocks are not used punitively, if you seem to have stopped reverting you're unlikely to be blocked, though you may want to consider self-reverting one of your reverts to be on the safe side. This case is the sort of thing I was thinking of when I said "One can revert 4 times in 24 hours without doing any editwarring, in my opinion" (in that discussion I just linked to). (non-admin opinion) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My memory is that I stopped editing that night and didn't see the 3RR notification (which did not come from the complaintant) until I logged in the next day. I don't think there was a fourth revert at any time. My edit at :38 is the first, the two edits at :43 and :44 count as the second, and the third was at :48. My edit at 16:01 was completely unrelated, and the one at 20:20 dealt with the some of the same information, but in a different part of the article, and was a removal because of BLP concerns. The next edit at 20:26 was the one I described above where I moved some of the material in question around and added back some that had been forgotten, and again removed one piece of information because of BLP concerns - so it's basically an edit. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see, Coppertwig's assessment is correct, so no action. It would be better for Ed to do less reverting and get other people involved, obviously. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but you might note that after my second' revert, I posted to the user's talk page to explain that I wasn't trying to block the information from being posted, I was trying to help insure that it was posted in a way that it wouldn't be removed. The result was another restore by an IP editor, my third revert, a similar note to the talk page of the IP editor, and a 3RR complaint by the original editor, who still doesn't seem to understand what I was doing.

    Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Just to clarify for future reference: even if edits are "unrelated", they can still violate 3RR. The rule is no more than 3 reverts on a page in a 24-hour period. Four reverts are a violation even if they are on different parts of the page and unrelated to each other. I'm sorry the other editor(s) didn't seem to understand what you were trying to do. Maybe if you explain it on the talk page and wait for them to comment before editing they'll be more receptive. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification, which was quite helpful - I actually misunderstood the rule, thinking that it applied only to reverts of the same material. Very useful to know for the future. So much for the presumption that someone who's been around for 3 years is presumed to know the rules. I indeed "knew" the rule, but I knew it wrong. Thanks again. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Watchdogb reported by User:Top Gun (Result: Page protected)

    • Previous version reverted to: [47]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: User:Watchdogb is constantly removing sourced edits claiming they are not reliable. However that source is used by the Indian goverment and other Southeastern Asian nations for their own research. In any case he is constantly claiming to upholding Wikipedia rules, but obviously doesn't mind to revert 5 or 10 times to make his point.
    Clearly you do not know what 3RR is. I did not make 3 reverts in any 24 hours. The so called revert #9,#7 and #3 are not a revert. It is actually an edit and not a revert. So called revert 4 and 6 are the exact same entry and not two different reports. Watchdogb (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No actualy number three is not a revert, but if you sum it up with your next three edits 12:18, 24 April 2008 12:21, 24 April 2008 12:23, 24 April 2008 you get a revert of everything the previous editor did. Top Gun

    Page protected Rjd0060 has protected the page. (See also a similar report on the same page below.) (comment by non-admin.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Watchdogb reported by User:Top Gun (Result: Page protected)

    • Previous version reverted to: [48]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: User:Watchdogb is constantly removing sourced edits claiming they are not reliable. However that source is used by the Indian goverment and other Southeastern Asian nations for their own research. In any case he is constantly claiming to upholding Wikipedia rules, but obviously doesn't mind to revert 5 or 10 times to make his point.
    First, this is not violating 3RR as only 3 edits are made within 24 hours which is not a violation. Second, the article is locked and therefore no need for any block even if I did violate - which I didn't. Watchdogb (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a violation, the name of the rule is 3 revert rule, and buddy you made 5 reverts. One after the other. Three of which within 24 hours. Top Gun

    Page protected The page has been protected by Metros. (comment by non-admin) Coppertwig (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Top_Gun reported by User:watchdogb (Result: Page protected)


    User has already been blocked once for 3RR violations. : Note that this user is the same person as the IP (87.116.170.203) here you see the IP signs Top Gun. More evidence are herehere here.

    As it may be hard for admins to see this user keeps reinstating the following line in the article:

    On April 23, a large-scale military offensive was mounted against the LTTE defence line in the northern peninsula of Jaffna. After several hours of intense fighting the SLA was beaten back with heavy casualties sustained on both sides. Like always the casualty figures were disputed by both sides of the conflict. The SLA claimed to have sustained 165 soldiers killed, 20 missing and 84 wounded in the day-long battle while they killed 100 militants. In contrast the LTTE said they themselves lost 25 men. Whatever the numbers this was the costliest battle yet for the SLA since the October 2006 debacle when 129 soldiers were killed and 515 wounded after a LTTE counter-offensive in Jaffna.

    . Watchdogb (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I am reinstating that because it is a sourced edit. There is a reference. And it is also a mainstream news source, because you are advocating mainstream as a primary precondition mr Watchdogb. And yes I am user 87.116.170.203 I just don't care about signing in sometimes. User Watchdogb should be blocked for reverting sourced edits. And I have not been the only one whose edits he has reverted, there are also other users.Top Gun

    Nope, it was a content dispute in which you reverted to your version 4 times violating 3RR. Watchdogb (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted only after you reverted, so you started reverting first. You are now accusing me only because you are trying to fight back because I reported you for violations of 3RR on two articles at the same time.Top Gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.170.203 (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Rjd0060 has protected the page until May 15. (comment by non-admin) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Yankees10 reported by User:67.137.0.28 (Result: )


    It seems user Yankees10 is completely against updating the Tyrell Johnson entry with information on his early years or information surrounding his recent drafting. I warned him on his user page not to revert anymore and he kept doing so. Please keep him from reverting entrys so we can update them without it all taken off.

    67.137.0.28 (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have only reverted your edit regarding the extra draft info thing twice, so this is not even a 3RR violation, and for one thing you are adding things that should not be there--Yankees10 02:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see four times you have reverted that page today. You're explanations have been from "none of this shit is necessary" to "why are you doing this." 67.137.0.28 (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted for differnt reasons, and most of the things you wrote was just commentary and opinion.--Yankees10 02:32, 27 April 2008 (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. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide 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]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=208445857"