Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive45

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Perfectblue97 reported by User:Minderbinder (Result: report got stale?)[edit]

Electronic voice phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Perfectblue97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


  • 1st revert: 12:19, 19 April 2007 partial revert - addition of "anomolous", removal of "said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin" and "purported", addition of line about ITC
  • 2nd revert: 13:28, 19 April 2007 exact revert to 1st revert, marked as revert
  • 3rd revert: 14:07, 19 April 2007 exact revert to 13:34, 19 April 2007 labled as revert
  • 4th revert: 15:01, 19 April 2007 partial revert to third version above, some new text but as in all other reverts, addition of "anomolous", removal of "said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin" and "purported"

Comments:

  • Two exact reverts, two partial reverts with slight variations in wording but the same key words and phrases added and removed each time. It could be argued that these two are edits and not reverts, but they make no real change and just make slight inconsequential wording changes to the reverted material. --Minderbinder 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Background:What Minderbinder has failed to mention is that at the time I was involved in an ongoing talk page discussion over a disputed section of the page at the time . Minderbinder was one party in that discussion, and so were two other users. I did not break the 3RR. I placed a proposed version of a new page intro on the talk page here and received feedback. I then listened to other users concerns and modified the page in an effort to reach a consensus as per standard wiki-procedure.

Here I refactored the introduction. Here it was reverted by another users. Here I carried out my first revert. here I edited the introduction to try an address concerns from another user. Here my edit was rejected by another user. here I carried out a second and final revert and requested that the user involeved in reverting explain which part of my edit they had a problem with and why (they blanket reverted all changes that I made even bits that I considered to be non-contentious, so I had no way of knowing exactly what they were referring to). here I carried out an unrelated edit of something that I believed was caught up in the crossfire (deleted earlier on, not part of this dispute). the complaining user refactored my original edit based on the ongoing talk page discussion. here my edit was not acceptable to all parties so again edited in an effort to reach a consensus.

In brief al my edits were legitimate and half were in direct response to concerns expressed by other users (of which the complainant is one):

  • 12:19, 19 April 2007 This was not a revert. It was a legitimate edit and a refactoring based on talk page discussion. Please observe the [1] between it and my previous version. Times and subsequent edits also mean that this is not a revert, but rather a standalone edit.
  • 14:07, 19 April 2007 - Revert, labeled as a revert. 1st revert
  • 14:07, 19 April 2007 - Revert, labeled as such
  • 15:01, 19 April 2007 - not a revert by any stretch of the imagination. Changed plurals to singulars (they are - it is). Exchanged short paragraph about one side in an dispute ("said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin") for a much large paragraph ("Believers in the supernatural often assign a paranormal origin to them, while those who do not believe in it either assign more scientific explanations to them, describing them as the result of a known process, or dismiss their existence of EVP as a whole, proposing that it is not a documentable phenomena.") mentioning both sides in the dispute. Replaced descriptive sentence ("Examples of purported EVP") with suspected weasel word, for a neutral pronoun ("they"). This is a classic refactoring. Certainly not a revert.

It should also be made clear that was recently a party in an RFC who spoke in opposition to Minderbinder's standpoint, and I am also a part in a dispute that has been referred to ARBcom on which I am also on the other side to Minderbinder. It therefore my opinion that this 3RR call is in bad faith. I request that it be dismissed.

perfectblue 08:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very obvious that these edits are reverts per the evidence that User:Minderbinder put forth. User:Perfectblue97 seems to be arguing that he should be allowed to revert simply because he was also discussing on the talkpage. As we all know (and this user should be aware since he is not a newcomer) breaking 3RR never has an excuse. --ScienceApologist 10:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that it is obvious that I was involved in an attempt to find an acceptable middle ground. I have clearly demonstrated that I ASKED for feedback and that I responded to it. Somebody wasn't happy about my wording so I changed it in response. This isn't reverting, it's trying to find an acceptable solution to a problem. For example here. This obviously can't be considered to be a revert

I refactored "said by paranormal investigators to be of paranormal origin" to read "Believers in the supernatural often assign a paranormal origin to them". Which is not a revert by any stretch of the imagination. I then added "while those who do not believe in it either assign more scientific explanations to them, describing them as the result of a known process, or dismiss their existence of EVP as a whole, proposing that it is not a documentable phenomena.", which is a unique passage that wasn't present in my previous version, or any other previous version for quite some time.

The rest of the edit is simply singular V plural and pronoun changing one phrase into a plural third person pronoun.

The fact that I actually precipitated this event by asking people what they want to change, then trying to accommodate them proves beyond any doubt that I did not break 3RR. I tried to create an acceptable intro via discussion, and this is what I get in return?

perfectblue 11:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You asked people what they objected to, other editors made it clear on the talk page, and yet you kept reverting in the very text people objected to. I don't see how you could possibly call that "attempting to find middle ground", it just looks like minor variations on a wording that only you prefer in order to try and avoid 3RR. And I don't see how pending arbcom cases are an exemption from 3RR enforcement - this certainly isn't a bad-faith report. I honestly believe it is four reverts since the same text mentioned above was removed/added four times. --Minderbinder 13:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted twice and I clearly stated that I reverted in those cases. The other times were genuine edits. If you check back at the talk page conversation, you will find that the attribution of claims was the primary sticking point, and was the area that that was the focus of my two edits. People didn't like what I wrote, so I tried to find a more acceptable solution. This is how things are supposed to be done, by discussion. If every discussed something and edited 3+ times as a result of said discussion was pulled up, there would be a lot less discussion.

I also find it less than a coincidence that this follows on from the RFC and is at the same time as the ARBcom come.

perfectblue 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No response from any of the admins on this one? --Minderbinder 12:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this report got stale. I'll go talk to the reporting editor and see if the problem is ongoing. ··coelacan 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Joseph.James00 reported by User:PageantUpdater (Result: 24hrs)[edit]

Asia Nitollano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Joseph.James00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

A previous incident report has already been filed above (so please read that as well) and Seraphimblade warned the user not to violate 3RR again but it has since happened 2 more times. Seraphimblade is currently off-line per a mesage on his talk page and comments on my talk page, so I have decided to relist so this gets noticed. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 22:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 24 hrs for 3RR. Crum375 00:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Chowbok reported by User:Quartet (Result:no vio)[edit]

Cow tipping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chowbok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [2]
  • 1st revert: [3]
  • 2nd revert: [4]
  • 3rd revert: [5]
  • 4th revert: [6]
  • Other older reverts:

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11]


Please note that this 3RR violation does not take place during a 24-hour period. However, the user has reverted numerous editors changes to the image caption of this article without valid reason and is clearly edit warring (in fact any editor who attempts to change the caption on this page is reverted without valid reason). The Wikipedia policy WP:3RR states that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." As you can see by the massive number of reverts above, this is a long-term issue, where edits by a large number of editors have been reverted, even though there is no established consensus on the issue. I won't hesitate to say that there could possibly be a WP:OWN violation going on as well.


User:Liaishard reported by User:Nightscream (Result:18 hours each)[edit]

Corey Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Liaishard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [12]
  • Both sides have violated 3RR. Despite Nightscream's claims to the contrary, there is no exception to the rule for reverting NPOV material: if there were, anyone could claim an exception at any time by arguing they were reverting POV. The only real exceptions are simple vandalism and unsourced negative material in biographies of living persons. As such, 18 hour blocks for both. Heimstern Läufer 01:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:SteveWolfer reported by User:FraisierB (Result:48 hours)[edit]

Nathaniel Branden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SteveWolfer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

(new)

I reported the first four reverts, but was told that there was no need for action because the article has settled down and there are no edits. I think you will find that this turns out not to be the case, as Mr. Wolfer has continued to revert over the same issue and shows no signs of ever stopping. Please note that he is reverting against three other people, and that I have refused to edit the article since filing my first report, so I am not fanning a fire here.

There is a fire, though, as this is fast becoming a full, ugly edit war, the details of which I am too polite to summarize. My concern is that your act of mercy was misunderstood by Wolfer as administrative sanction to revert that article at will, based on his patently false claim of removing libel. As I understand it, only simple vandalism and unsourced negative material in biographies of living persons allow endless reversion, but this material is reliably and multiply sourced and isn't even particularly negative.

Wolfer has been blocked for 3RR violation before but has gotten away with it since, even before this. At this point, I feel that we have no choice but to block Wolfer's account to the maximum extent allowed until he learns that he does not own all articles related to Ayn Rand. By doing this now, we can avoid the need for a community ban later. FraisierB 02:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting 3 others on a ref'd statement of fact about a school's lack of accredidation. Rlevse 03:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)...:The ref clearly states that the school is unaccredited and grads can be licensed, which is what the article says; stating facts is not libel. The ref is an official source and very reliable and refers to the school, not the subject of the article.Rlevse 14:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
He is also pursuing 3rr violations on template:ethics, if you look at his edit history, you will see that he will not accept consensus on some things that are matters of fact. --Buridan 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop reported by User:JJay (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Bob Dylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Edit warring on Bob Dylan by an experienced editor. No support shown on talk page for this change. --JJay 13:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:87.189.91.236 reported by User:Dual Freq (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Flag of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 87.189.91.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Oh, I'm aware. I also regard all my reverts anti-vandalism. None of the changes I reverted was in any way justified, despite continued requests to do so. --87.189.91.236
  • I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 18:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Guillermo Alvarez reported by User:NickW557 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Finasteride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guillermo Alvarez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

--NickContact/Contribs 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 20:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:DDRG reported by User:Mackan (Result: page protected)[edit]

Joji Obara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DDRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Let me be straight about one thing - this user has not broken 3RR, and yes, I read the disclaimer. But, WP:3RR clearly states that "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive". This user keeps reverting other users (but is sure to not break 3RR), has not made a single edit to the talk page of the article in question, is ignoring the consensus there, has only used the edit summary field ONCE, and is breaking WP:BIO rules. If it's wrong to post about this here I apologize, but considering the wording on WP:3RR, this seemed appropriate. Mackan 20:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I explained my edit on edit summary before, and I think that what I want to say is already explained in talk page by other people. So I didn't it. What I want to say is only to tell it clearly how it is if someone dosen't want to see it. Thanks. DDRG 20:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have fully protected the page. There seems to be no point in blocking DDRG for disruption because while he is blocked, he will not be able to contribute to a discussion on the article talk page. By protecting the article, hopefully the user will go to the talk page and discuss his changes to the article. Nishkid64 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. But, I think what would be explained is already done by other people, so I wonder I have something to add it. Though I will add some. DDRG 21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:MrHaney reported by User:Elonka (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Gnostic Gospels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MrHaney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

MrHaney continues inserting a paragraph promoting author Elaine Pagels, despite consensus on the talkpage to not include it. He has also been edit-warring to insert many other Pagels-related links on the page, and appears to be a {{spa}} account, with no editing history outside of Gnostic Gospels. He has been repeatedly warned about 3RR by different editors, but continues to edit-war and retort in an uncivil fashion. --Elonka 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I have blocked the user for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Nishkid64 21:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:UBeR reported by User:Nethgirb (Result:24 block)[edit]

Global warming controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UBeR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Background: UBeR has been active as a global warming skeptic on the global warming-related articles for some time. A previous complaint about his behavior is on the Administrator's Noticeboard (Reigning in Uber's trolling). Recently he seems to have been following John Quiggin around, first initiating an RfD against an article JQ created; after that RfD failed, making inappropriate edits to the article, such as removing sourced material with an edit summary saying it was unsourced (see discussion and in particular evidence); and now removing JQ's material from Global warming controversy. Full disclosure: I am also active on the GW-related articles and frequently conflict with UBeR on content issues. Thanks for your time. --Nethgirb 23:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous labels serve little more than to outwardly exhibit ignorance. ~ UBeR 23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked Uber for 24 hours. Raul654 01:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, what a joke. Perhaps Raul can actually stop being a sanctiminious, bigoted individual and actually use his admin powers properly? Or is this beyond his intelligence? For ages Raul has made sure he has owned the global warming article, and its a total farce. LuciferMorgan 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, LuciferMorgan is back to his old trolling. I can see he's expanded his horizons beyond the FAR page, though, where his attitude is well known and nearly got him blocked. Raul654 16:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Your attitude is well known on Wikipedia (and off it actually), only you use your admin power to abuse it. May I add to anyone reading this Raul has issued another block warning to me without even considering getting an independent administrator involved which is very common for him may I add. WP:KETTLE Raul - remember it every time you call me a troll. As concerns FAR, that's the same place you used to spread lies about me which I remember correctly and also warned you were going to stop an FAR of one of your own FAs. Furthermore if he doesn't like the truth I don't care as I will plainly speak the truth. LuciferMorgan 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Nima Baghaei reported by User:Michaelbusch, 2nd offense (Result: 31 hr.)[edit]

Topics in ufology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nima Baghaei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: 23:32
  • 3RR warning: warning prior to recent 3RR block (during which I was also blocked because I lost count of the times I removed the offending material). Nima has been adding material back over the objections of three other editors and seems to be deliberately being dense with regards to criticism. Nima has filed a Request for Mediation, but keeps adding back the material while insisting that we 'let the mediation occur first'. Michaelbusch 23:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
User blocked 31 hr. for 2nd offence per WP:3RR fishhead64 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Irakliy81 reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

List_of_sovereign_states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irakliy81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

See block log. Khoikhoi 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for 24 hours. Previous blocks are from over a year ago, so I'm reluctant to make a longer block at this point. If he continues to revert after the block expires, a longer time may be warranted. So explained at his talk page. Phaedriel - 11:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Scottandrewhutchins reported by User:Naruto134 (Result: 30 hours)[edit]

King Shisa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Naruto134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

This user, Scottandrewhutchins keeps changing the name of this Godzilla monster into a name that is the japanese name. The Godzilla monsters there have their english names but he keeps changing this one monster's name, King Caesar to King Shisa. He kept moving the name more than once and I warned him, but he ignored me. --Naruto134 00:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Has this user been blocked? --Naruto134 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Irishguy reported by User:RPIRED (Result:no violation)[edit]

Yankees-Red Sox rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irishguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&action=edit&section=1

User has continually reverted information which is unsourced. Claims a source that has been continually pushed but has no basis in fact. POV dispute. Warned on user page. - RPIRED 03:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What I reverted was readding a sourced claim that the above user continually removes. And as the times show, I didn't break, nor even make, 3 reverts within 24 hours. The above user is attempting to claim a false 3RR to gain an edge in an edit conflict. IrishGuy talk 04:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No violation - User:Irishguy did not make more than three reverts within 24 hours. fishhead64 05:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No? So the whole thing about 3RR being "an electric fence" is just for show? - RPIRED 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Biophys reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: Warning)[edit]

Operation Sarindar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

I would like to note also that I too have reported user Biophys for repeated violations of 3RR on Boris Stomakhin, but he was only warned. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive44#User:Biophys_reported_by_User:Vlad_fedorov_.28Result:_Warning.29

Despite warnings he continues to revert any additions to the text by me. Although he never disputed main part of my new additions, he reverts them. Vlad fedorov 10:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, like with user csloat, user Biophys also deletes and reverts my additions to Operation Sarindar article, which presents just another version of the article Al Qa'qaa high explosives controversy.Vlad fedorov 10:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that the first edit is a revert, but everyone involved here is headed for trouble due to edit warring. I strongly advise that everyone involved seek dispute resolution instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The first edit is indeed a revert of the specific material on iraq and on bodansky. Although he did change around the order of a lot of other stuff, the revert is still clearly in evidence. He should be warned or blocked about the 3RR violation and you're quite right that everyone should seek DR on that article. csloat 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:85.158.32.6 and User:85.158.35.142 reported by User:Ivan Kricancic (Result: 24hrs for both)[edit]

User talk:KillerChihuahua (edit | [[Talk:User talk:KillerChihuahua|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.158.32.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [18]

Note these diffs as well, as they are very close to breakign teh rule, and almost certainly will be broken soon.

Bosniaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User talk:Ancient Land of Bosoni (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Ancient Land of Bosoni|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Articles that he has reverted twice so far in teh past 15 minutes are Bosnian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Bosnian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and many more (refer to this).

It should also be noted that this IP and many other 85.158.xxx.xxx IPs are in fact Emir Arven (talk · contribs) - a known POV pusher, vandal, troll, personal attacker 3rr violater etc. He currently has an RFC against him. And has been blocked 10 times including 4 times for 3RR violations.

His IP has changed to 85.158.35.142

Both IPs blocked for 24 hours for 3RR on Bosniak —dgiestc 04:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ivan Kricancic reported by User:85.158.35.142 (Result: 24hrs)[edit]

User talk:KillerChihuahua (edit | [[Talk:User talk:KillerChihuahua|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ivan Kricancic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [24]

7th Muslim Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • 1st revert:

[30]

  • 2nd revert:

[31]

  • 3rd revert:

[32]

  • 4th revert:

[33] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.158.35.142 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

  • 5th revert:

[34]

Also:

User talk:Ancient Land of Bosoni (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Ancient Land of Bosoni|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Articles that he has reverted third times Bosnian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Bosnian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and many more (refer to this and this).

It should also be noted that this IP and many other 124.xxx.xxx.xxx IPs are in fact Ivan Kricancic (talk · contribs) - a known POV pusher, vandal, troll, natioalist, personal attacker 3rr violater etc.

He was indefinitely blocked because of sockpuppetery: Rts_freak.[35] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.158.35.142 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Comment[edit]

This is one of the IPs I'm talking about in teh above section. Reverting when an edit is trollish or vandalism is not a violation of 3RR, so I have not violated. This user is under inverstigation here. KingIvan 10:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR on Bosniak —dgiestc 04:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:COFS reported by User:Antaeus Feldspar (Result:48h)[edit]

L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):


Notes:

  • The exact material removed with each edit differs, but in each case the following text is removed:

[[Image:Hubbard Una.png|thumb|right|300 px|Hubbard's claimed awards per his fake [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lronhubbardfakedd214.gif DD-214]. Note that he refers to the [[Oak Leaf Cluster]] of his Purple Heart as a "palm". Also several claimed [[Service star]]s for his campaign awards.]] In later years, Hubbard made a number of claims about his military record that do not reconcile with the government's documentation of his service years.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lronhubbardfakedd214.gif image of Hubbard's fake DD-214] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lronhubbardrealdd214.gif image of Hubbard's actual DD-214]</ref>

and

The Church of Scientology has circulated a US Navy notice of separation (a form numbered [[DD214]], completed on leaving active duty) as evidence of Hubbard's wartime service. However, the US Navy's copy of Hubbard's DD214 is very different, listing a much more modest record.<ref name="MBTR"/> The Scientology version, signed by a nonexistent Lt. Cmdr. Howard D. Thompson, shows Hubbard being awarded medals that do not exist, boasts academic qualifications Hubbard did not earn, and places Hubbard in command of vessels not in the service of the US Navy. The Navy has noted "several inconsistencies exist between Mr. Hubbard's DD214 [the Scientology version] and the available facts".<ref>[http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/war-rec.htm Navy: Official - Hubbard's "record" *is* forged]</ref><ref>[http://www.spaink.net/cos/warhero/medals.htm Ron the War Hero: Hubbard's Medal's]</ref>[[Image:Hubbard Aut.png|thumb|right|300 px|Hubbard's authorized awards per his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lronhubbardrealdd214.gif DD-214].]]

  • It might be argued that some of the references in the removed text are unreliable sources. So far as I know, there is no exception to the three-revert rule for merely believing an unreliable source is being used, except in the case of a living person, which Hubbard is not. Even if this were the case, however, in each revert COFS has removed the sentence "However, the US Navy's copy of Hubbard's DD214 is very different, listing a much more modest record." which is supported by the cited source "Sappell, Joel; Welkos, Robert W. (1990-06-24). "The Mind Behind The Religion". Los Angeles Times. p. A1:1. Retrieved 2007-04-23. Check date values in: |date= (help)" COFS seems to be arguing that if he/she does not choose to believe information even from a major metropolitan newspaper like the Los Angeles Times, he/she can not only remove it but violate 3RR to do so, judging by this talk page comment: "So don't try to "prove" something when your source OBVIOUSLY is some parroting journalist with no clue what he is talking about. COFS 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)"
  • COFS was already aware of the 3RR prior to this incident as he/she was blocked just two weeks ago because of it: [36].
Bucket of whitewash confiscated for 2 days. yandman 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


User:Nikola Smolenski reported by User:Noah30 (Result:no block, malformed report declined)[edit]

Račak incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Very disruptive user.

  • Please resubmit report with diffs, not revisions. Crum375 22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:74.109.26.185 reported by User:amatulic (Result: No violation)[edit]

User talk:74.109.26.185 (edit | [[Talk:User talk:74.109.26.185|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.109.26.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • Previous version reverted to: [37]
  • All reverts are the same: Anonymous user blanks own talk page (containing current-day warnings), and two others restore it. All have violated 3RR.

Update: "Previous version reverted to" is now obsolete. User is engaging in talk now. However, both the anon user and two others (User:Bluezy and User:Bass fishing physicist) have violated WP:3RR in this edit war, so it's fair to block them all. -Amatulic 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to insert an outside opinion User:Bluezy and User:Bass fishing physicist appear, to me, to be reverting simple and obvious vandalism i.e. page blanking and thus have not violated 3RR. I was following this 'war' whilst avoiding becoming involved, having suffered the 3RR myself, :(. 82.3.93.146 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No violation: From the exception section in WP:3RR: "Normally, reverting by a user within their own user space". It has been proposed and failed to gain consensus that a user may be blocked for removing warnings from their own talk page. It is frowned upon, but not prohibited, to remove warnings from one's own talk page. For the other two users, I will assume good faith that they thought they were fixing vandalism. —dgiestc 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Mshafqat reported by User:WilyD (Result:24H)[edit]

Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mshafqat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

  • 1st revert: [38] This deletion is repeated: [39], although the second blanks additional content as well
  • 2nd revert: [40] This deletion is repeated: [41]
  • 3rd revert: [42] This deletion is repeated: [43]
  • 4th revert: [44] This deletion is repeated: [45]
  • All these edits occur between 5:39 and 6:46 on April 24
  • General Warning: [46]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [47]

User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Sandpiper (Result: Page Protected, User blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on R.A.B. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Folken de Fanel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

also

Folken de Fanel was then reverted by a user not normally editing this page [48], but said user was in my judgement then intimidated into self reverting, see here:[49]

I have never intimidated anyone. Sandpiper, please don't make bad faith accusations that can be seen as diffamation.
Funpika was mistaken in reverting the article (and was certainly not in your "jugment"), and he freely admitted it when we discussed about it (as he had invited me to do on my talk page).Folken de Fanel 18:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User has been warned previously about 3RR and banned for violation of 3RR on Horcrux, but considers that his actions are justified (see edit history comments). Sandpiper 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, our interests are served by protecting the page to encourage discussion. That said, Folken de Fanel is fully aware of WP:3RR, and has chosen to disobey it. As such, I'm protecting the page and blocking Folken de Fanel for 24 hours. alphachimp 00:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Folken had done this before but I couldn't be bothered to post it here. The last time I did, on Horcrux, the article was blocked to his version and remains so. That's three articles he currently has blocked to his version. By all means let us play by the rules, but it seems to me the only lesson being taught here is that persistently breaking this rule is a succesfull tactic for pushing your own POV. People become very tired of being reasonable. Sandpiper 06:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Eblem reported by User:PubliusFL (Result:Already blocked)[edit]

Parker v. District of Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eblem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

Also apparent disruptive edits to make a WP:POINT at 23:04, 23 April 2007 and 23:13, 23 April 2007 (latter may have been an attempted 8th revert that backfired).

3RR warning in edit summary here, also removed a request to discuss changes and vandalism warnings from his talk page. PubliusFL 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has already been blocked for personal attacks by Coelacan, so a 3RR block is superfluous. // Sean William 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Zubenzenubi reported by User:Paul Cyr (Result:No violation)[edit]

Windows Vista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Criticism of Windows Vista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zubenzenubi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Although two separate pages, user has repeatedly reverted the same content on both of them well over 3 times combined. Not 3 reverts on the same page, but 4 reverts on the same issue and obvious edit warring, despite attempts by others and myself to discuss the issue.

Windows Vista[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: 11:02

Criticism of Windows Vista[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: 10:56