Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive67

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:75.47.138.61 reported by User:NE2 (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

California State Route 88 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.47.138.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


This guy changes IP every day so blocking might have no effect. NE2 08:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Page semi-protected. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Phantomia reported by User:Seicer (Result: 24 hrs)[edit]

Oink's Pink Palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Phantomia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


There were also two reverts extending back to 18 February.

User continues to add in spam links regarding Oink's Pink Palace. Claims that he is an "ex-Moderator of OiNK [and] Member of OiNKv2" and states that "[he] have seen the new site at the new url with the old data so I can confirm it is real." But the primary web-site states otherwise. It's been previously reported to WP:ANI, seen here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Tigeringtown reported by User:ViperNerd (Result: 24h)[edit]

Carolina-Clemson rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tigeringtown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


After being warned of the 3RR the user responded by posting a vandalism template to my talk page, in addition to calling me a liar in violation of WP:NPA. Then the user decided to simply ignore the warning and revert the article for the 4th time in 3 hours. This user has no other history of editing and appears to be primarily interested in trying to start an edit war over a topic that has been covered in the article already. I have reason to believe the user is also using sockpuppets for this purpose, as this edit was made by an IP user just before this user started making the same edit, please consider blocking 64.234.75.220 and 209.221.240.193 simultaneous to this user. In fact, semi-protection might be in order for this article until this user gets bored and moves on. ViperNerd (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked for 24 hours. Mangojuicetalk 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Malarious reported by User:SFC9394 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Scotland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Malarious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [1]

Discussion open on talk, user not interested, given warning, paid no attention. Other contribs. of user strongly suggest that WP:NPOV is irrelevent to them. SFC9394 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for twenty-four hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Imperium_Europeum reported by User:Lakinekaki (Result: page protected )[edit]

Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Imperium_Europeum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Multiple editors were reverting and general chaos seemed to be ensuing, so it's protected for now. --slakrtalk / 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cebactokpatop reported by User:Seminarist (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Image:MZizijulas.jpg. Cebactokpatop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Cebactokpatop repeatedly insists on placing POV description on MZizijulas.jpg file. This is part of ongoing dispute over the article on John Zizioulas. (Previous 3RR violation by Cebactokpatop on that page resulted in page being protected for 10 days.) Seminarist (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note, I have stepped in on this and I am attempting to mediate. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no 3RR violation on John Zizioulas. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, 3RR warning given here. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 17:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop has reverted the text again.[7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seminarist (talkcontribs) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by me. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Blocked for 31 hours. · AndonicO Hail! 19:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop is adding POV to the description of the text again. Seminarist (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Twsx reported by User:Navnløs (Result: No violation) (Result:Article ban)[edit]

Amon Amarth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Dissection (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Twsx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Note: These are all the Amon Amarth edits, I'm not sure if I got all of them, though. I can also provide the diffs for Dissection, but that would just take me even longer. The later edits are more interesting, if you care.


User has been warring on both of those pages long before I took up the issue with him. The user has been warned repeatedly by a handful of users and has made it clear that they don't care. Though, for the past few months, it has been mostly me reverting the user, if you look through both pages' histories you will see that many other users have reverted Twsx as well. I'm sure some of my past indisgressions may be brought up (I have been blocked for edit warring myself a couple times, though I still believe I was in the right on my latest one), but I assure you that I've changed and I do mean to help wikipedia and this kind of nonsense only makes us all go crazy and not focus on good editing. I also admit that when this edit warring started between me and Twsx it was mostly a comma break vs line break issue, but as I said, I only want the edit warring to stop now. I'm asking for a block to teach the user a lesson and stop edit warring. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that i have never thought of this before. Please note that I could make the very same list with this editors revisions (which usually take place within, say, 12 hours after my edit). More argumentation and referencing concerning the issue can be found at User:Twsx/CVL, (so yes, I had to deal with this before, kinda :-)). As far as my humble judgement goes (partially based on the history of this editors behavoir, as seen on the page linked above) I have to assume that he is placing this report in bad faith. ~ twsx | talkcont | ~ 00:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That is a blatant lie. You have been edit warring on those two pages even before I got involved. Would you like me to provide the evidence? Because I can. You have been warned and reverted by multiple users, so I suppose they were all in bad faith, too, right? And you happen to be an innocent viction who's done no wrong? You've shown a disregard for the rules of wikipedia and gotten away with it for too long w/o any measures being taken. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence that a violation of the three-revert rule has occurred. Hence, no action here. -- tariqabjotu 01:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to be offensive but he has most definitely broken 3RR. Excessive edit warring is still breaking 3RR even if the user hasn't reverted three times in a day. And I quote "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." Which happens a lot. I have been blocked before without making 3 reverts in a day. Edit warring is edit warring and above all it is disruptive and needs to be prevented. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tariq is correct, this is not a violation of WP:3RR, which is why it cannot be dealt with here. If you feel that these are disruptive edits, you can always post a report at WP:AN/I. —Travistalk 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I can take it to ANI, but I seem to be missing something here and I admit I don't understand. How is Twsx not breaking 3RR? He's edit warring like crazy! I, myself, have been reported here before without having to make 3 reverts in a day and simply for edit warring over a week or so. If I take it to ANI should I leave it in the same format with all the diffs and what not? Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something it says "To report edit warring, see the administrators' 3RR noticeboard." at ANI. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Policy says: “An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period.” (emphasis mine) In other words, 4 or more reverts within 24 hours, which hasn’t happened here. I understand your frustration, but this noticeboard is not the proper forum for this case. —Travistalk 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No, edit warring is not tolerated, and admins have broad discretion to stop disruption. Read WP:3RR; just below the sentence quoted above you will read Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. There is nothing wrong with flexibility and creativity in crafting ways to stop editors from acting poorly. Thatcher 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Actually, I'm going to jump in here and do something a little different. Edit warring is not an acceptable editing method, whether or not 3RR is violated. What we have here is a long-running edit war (47 reversions!) over whether or not to list the band's genres on a single line or two lines in the info-box. That is the lamest, saddest, stupidest edit war I have ever seen. I am banning both Navnløs (talk · contribs) and Twsx (talk · contribs) from editing the article for 30 days, or until they reach an agreement and settle this issue once and for all. There is a talk page, a Wikiproject to consult with, RFC and mediation, and this sort of petty disruption in lieu of appropriate dispute resolution needs to stop. Thatcher 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:208.40.192.194 User:TiconderogaCCB reported by 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC) (Result: Stale)[edit]

St. John's University (New York City)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 208.40.192.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: [8]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: not a new user has been blocked in the past for same incident [13]

This is the same user TiconderogaCCB as can be seen by [14] who has been blocked in the past for edit warring and abusive use of sockpuppets [15] 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Report is stale - edit war was a couple of days ago. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zsero reported by User:Snowfire51 (Result: Deferred to ANI)[edit]

User talk:Klpalmer (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Klpalmer|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zsero is engaged in an edit war over a warning left by admin User:Hu12 on the pages of five accounts suspected of leaving spam. There is currently a discussion of this matter at WP:ANI, however, Zsero feels the spam warnings are not valid and deletes them before any consensus can be gained. On the WP:ANI page, he admitted to being fully aware of violating the policy here [16].

He has also done the same multiple reverts to [User_talk:134.68.173.135], [User_talk:134.68.172.247], and [User_talk:Stephena]. I've attempted to talk to him about this on both his talk page and mine, but he remains adamant about removing the warnings because he feels his edit war is justified the spam warnings are WP:NPA. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Deferred to WP:ANI. There are wider issues here and blocking Zsero would be unhelpful. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the full others;

--Hu12 (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Crum375 reported by User:4.253.37.178 (Result: Page protected, content issue referred to ArbCom)[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Crum375 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)




3RR violation in arbcom case evidence posting place, gaming the system to try to justify 3RR violation. 4.253.37.178 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Exempt due to WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Is this exemption a blank check that permits an unlimited number of reversions if you claim it to fall under that policy, no matter how many other editors in good standing disagree? *Dan T.* (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it just prevents people from posting links that are borderline vandalism, since the link is a highly opinionated blog (see also, our external links policy) and calls the person a psychopath, which is potentially libelous under the biographies of living persons policy. --slakrtalk / 20:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The page has been protected twice so far due to this edit warring, and so far Crum375 has reverted it 10 times, while a whole variety of other editors (I think some of them even admins) reverted back. Editing of other people's ArbCom evidence by anybody other than an arbitrator or clerk is supposed to be against policy. If BLP is suddenly to be strictly enforced on ArbCom evidence pages, there's an awful lot else that needs to be redacted, including numerous statements about Judd Bagley in the same case. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
WTF? Throwing three-letter acronyms around doesn't make you exempt from the 3RR. Sean William @ 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Yosemitesam25 reported by User:Arjuna808 (Result: No action taken)[edit]

Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yosemitesam25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Yosemitesam25 has been reverting and/or editing out text (both whole and in part) in an article that has been the subject of contentious dispute in the past. S/he has reverted or altered text despite discussion and explanation on my talk page of why these edits were likely not warranted. Thank you. Arjuna (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 reported by User:Prester John (Result:Blocked 12 hours )[edit]

Brendan Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Timeshift9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: here

All reverts are the same.


  • Diff of 3RR warning: User has been blocked for 3RR before.

User:Timeshift9 attempts a wikipedia 3RR record with 4 reverts in just over half an hour. User was offered the chance to self revert yet has declined. Prester John (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Timeshift9 for 12 hours for edit-warring on the article. However, while changing the size each time he reverted, he sometimes added content or did other work, if it is uncontroversial I encourage him to make such constructive edits when the block expires. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Baconhead2010 reported by User:Collectonian (Result: no block)[edit]

List of Wheel of Fortune puzzle categories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Baconhead2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


As IP 71.128.137.235, this user restored cleaned up fancruft from the article, that was removed based on discussions in the current AfD and the main Wheel of Fortune talk page. Additionally they removed the AfD templates. After that was reverted, they created the Baconhead2010 account, and kept reverting the revert. After third revert of his edits, he stopped removing the AfD, but kept redoing the readdition of the fancruft, despite warnings to stop. Between the final warning, he made an additional edit, inexplicably removing a single item, perhaps thinking it would negate the 3RR rule or something. User seems to have no purpose but pointed attempts to undo the needed clean up in the article, despite consensus to clean it up for bring back into the main to avoid deletion. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This report contains oldids, not diffs. Please refile using diffs if you would like the report acted on. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
All links fixed to diffs AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
As both sides are edit warring, and Collectionian is arguably the worse offender (using Twinkle in a content dispute and labelling the edits as vandalism, for example), I'm disinclined to make a block on only one side. Instead, I'm watchlisting the article and am ready to block if either continues to revert. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
His first two reverts removed the AfD template, something he did as an anon IP. How is that not vandalism??? AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If your reverts had only been to restore the AfD tag, fine. But you reverted the entire edit, including the disputed content, making your reverts edit warring. I did indeed take the AfD tag removal into account, since if it weren't for this, I would simply have blocked you both for edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. My first inclination when I saw this was to block both users. Calling something vandalism doesn't make it so. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay...I disagree as his edits also blatantly went against consensus, and he was doing the same thing before under various IPs and being reverted by others, but okay. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I apologize if I'm coming in after the fact, but for the record, I'm the listed creator of the page in question, although I simply created a sub-page and moved some material over from the main Wheel of Fortune page. I have contributed to the sub-page as well. The edits which Baconhead2010 repeatedly reverted were mine. I was in the process of trying to re-organize and edit down the page to address some of the concerns which led to Collectonian's AfD nomination, and to select a small portion of the material to re-incorporate into the main article if the AfD is agreed to. The first time Baconhead2010 RVed non-anonymously, to the original bloated and unsourced version, he left a relatively constructive comment (which, however, didn't address the AfD or the need for editing). After Collectonian's RV of that, he RVed again with the comment "The other version's useless and looks bad." That would be where I'd stop assuming good faith on his part. Collectonian and I have had some editorial disagreements about these pages in recent days, but we're working together cooperatively and productively. Baconhead2010 doesn't seem to be interested in being part of that process. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTRH (talkcontribs) 01:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Brendan reported by User:Prester John (Result: No violation; Prester John blocked 48 h for edit warring)[edit]

David Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brendan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: here

Repeated removal of a long standing section without any talkpage discussion. In particular this paragraph;

"A document produced within Guantánamo Bay and signed by Feroz Abbasi, but later repudiated by him in a second signed statement, alleged that Hicks had said that he wanted to "go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews," "crash a plane into a building," and "go out with that last big adrenaline rush," that "if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like 'there is no god but Allah' etc. [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out". Abbasi repudiated all the claims and described the allegations against Hicks as "ludicrous in their content"."[1]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: User has been blocked many many times for 3RR especially on this article

After several weeks break serial disruptive edit warmonger User:Brendan returns to his favorite whitewash ground the David Hicks article, this time to remove an entire paragraph of relevant referenced information 4 times in 13 minuets, without any talkpage discussion. Has previously been blocked for a week for edit warring and disruption on this same article, so escalating blocks seem to be having little effect. Maybe something a lot longer may keep the integerity of the articleand the encyclopedia. Prester John (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a particularly bad faith and hypocritical report on Prester John's behalf, who I'd suggest is edit warring on the article as much or more so than Brendan. I'll add more soon and hope an admin can wait. Note, Prester himself only used the talk page (which false "Delete" allegations) after he used up his own 3RR "entitlement". From my reading, no info was "deleted" by Brendan, rather it was moved. A big difference. --Merbabu (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This is erroneous. The section in italics is now no longer in the article. Prester John (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Erroneous or not (I'd call it hair splitting to game the system), you yourself were edit warring and using the 3 revert rule as an entitlement to revert 3 times and is true to your long established edit warrior form. --Merbabu (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Erroneous indeed. Prester John, whose own block and contrib histories are neither untarnished nor civil, is persistently reinserting duplicate POV information creating undue weight and article bias. My edit summaries clearly explain my reasons for removal and request that he avoid this disruptive behaviour. After repeated reversions by PJ shy of a 3RR limit, I placed additional comment here on the article talkpage explaining my reasons. Prester John never sought consensus via the talkpage for his duplicate insertion. Neither has sought to at least gain consensus to incorporate those parts he feels are not duplicate information and not undue weight. Finally, the fourth edit of mine that he cites was not a revert and was made to an entirely different part of the article -- indeed the very part of the article where, only a few paragraphs above, the disputed content is already covered:

    In a memoir that was later repudiated by its author, Guantanamo detainee Feroz Abbasi claimed Hicks was "Al-Qaedah's 24 [carat] Golden Boy" and "obviously the favourite recruit" of their al-Qaeda trainers during exercises at the al-Farouq camp near Kandahar. The memoir made a number of claims, including that Hicks was teamed in the training camp with Filipino recruits from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and that during internment in Camp X-Ray, "Hicks [said] he was praying to Satan for help".[19]

--Brendan [ contribs ] 03:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this referenced information

"Hicks had said that he wanted to "go back to Australia and rob and kill Jews," "crash a plane into a building," and "go out with that last big adrenaline rush," that "if he were to go into a building of Jews with an automatic weapon or as a suicide bomber he would have to say something like 'there is no god but Allah' etc. [sic] just so he could see the look of fear on their faces, before he takes them out". Abbasi repudiated all the claims and described the allegations against Hicks as "ludicrous in their content"."

is no longer after in the article after Brendan removed it 4 times from 2 different sections. I tried to stop him removing it 3 times yet he decided to go that 4th revert with no talkpage discussion, he's a big boy, he knew what he was doing. Prester John (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the supposed reverts by Brendan (talk · contribs), I see two reverts, an attempt to move information (not a revert), and then a third revert that removed duplicative content; not a violation. However, especially given Prester John's prior history of disruption on this article and others, his behavior here seems like disruptive baiting and gaming the rules... I've blocked him for forty-eight hours for edit warring. krimpet 04:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


User:WillOakland reported by User:Ward3001 (Result:no block)[edit]

Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WillOakland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Previous version reverted to: here 15:35, February 17, 2008


Also see administrator comments about POV-pushing here and here. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ward's report is disingenious and vindictive. He posted a 3RR warning on my talk page (It's still there) and we had a little conversation. I didn't make any further changes to the article after the warning. I told him that I hadn't violated 3RR because my first edit to the article in question wasn't a revert. He chose to report me only after I made it clear that I disagreed with him on that point. Clearly he is more upset about being contradicted than he is about edit warring. WillOakland (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No block, as the first edit given isn't exactly a revert. I do wish to caution both users not to edit war, and that WillOakland should be careful to keep edit summaries civil. Oh, and dissing on Homestar Runner isn't cool either, but that's just my opinion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I respect the decision not to block. Point of clarification: I chose to make a 3RR report after it WillOakland gave clear indications in exchanges with me and other editors that he was not open to discussion instead of unilaterally deciding that he should decide what needs to be removed from articles. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Apostle12 reported by User:Ice Cold Beer (Result: warned)[edit]

9/11 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Apostle12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The user in question is continuously adding a link to a bogus "journal" into the article. While the time of the warning is the same as the time of the last revert, I feel that the Apostle12 has been around long enough to know better without being warned. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact he has been here a while doesn't necessarily mean he knows all the rules. As there were no reverts since the warning, I think that he shouldn't be blocked this time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned --slakrtalk / 23:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (simultaneous edit with Slakr) The user was warned not engage in edit wars, 1 minute before making the third edit. Since then, the edit warring stopped, and the matter is being discussed on the article's talk page. A block is not necessary and serves no purpose imo. And it takes two sides for a revert war: the other editors were changing the article without establishing new consensus (consensus can change). Working together, they technically did not break the 3RR rule, but in spirit they did. They should have taken their proposed deletion to the talk page first.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:LittleTinMan reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24 hour blocks)[edit]

New account, but not a new user, self declared reincarnation of some experienced user ([18]), therefore no warning necessary.

Also revert-warring in parallel on Minorities in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about the same issue, the inclusion of a map. WP:ARBMAC is applicable. Fut.Perf. 08:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no declaration of being an experienced user which means the user hasn't been warned about breaking 3RR. ScarianCall me Pat 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, my mistake... He was warned. I have blocked User:Polibiush and User:LittleTinMan for 24 hours each for breaking the 3RR on the Greece article. May I recommend all parties to use the discussion page to work out content disputes. ScarianCall me Pat 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Galassi reported by User:jd2718 (Result: 24 hour block )[edit]

Babi Yar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Galassi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverts have been accompanied by zero discussion, and have included patently absurd accusations of vandalism in the edit summaries.

Note that user:Galassi responded to the warning at 16:08, and then reverted again. Jd2718 (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an entirely frivolous charge. There are no limits on rv of vandalism whether amonymous

or signed.Galassi (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Result: I have blocked User:Galassi for 24 hours for breaking 3RR on the Babi Yar article. The edits in question were not vandalism and was actually a content dispute. I recommend all parties involved use the talk page to discuss any future disagreements. ScarianCall me Pat 18:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:RAYBAN reported by User:McGeddon (Result: 24 hour )[edit]

Smarties (Nestlé) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RAYBAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Repeated deletion of sourced sections of the article that the editor believes to be wrong, despite requests to discuss it on the talk page. McGeddon (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Result - Plainly broke 3RR, blocked for 24 hours. May I remind all parties involved to use discussion rather than just reverting. Thanks. ScarianCall me Pat 19:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zsero reported by User:Hu12 (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

User talk:Ashleylmack (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Ashleylmack|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued edit warring, after discussion ending on ANI. see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Zsero_reported_by_User:Snowfire51_.28Result:_Deferred_to_ANI.29

--Hu12 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing defamation from a user's talk page is 1) not subject to 3RR; 2) in any case more important than any rule that might be thought to prevent it. Leaving "the wrong version" up pending discussion does harm, so it cannot be allowed; otoh leaving the disputed accusation off does no harm, even if it turns out to have been warranted. -- Zsero (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, excuses do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy and is never a reason to engage in Disruptive editing and edit warring. Wikipedia templates are in no way defamation, nor are the ever a personal attack.

  1. 21:34, 21 February 2008
  2. 00:40, 22 February 2008
  3. 01:07, 22 February 2008
  4. 00:33, 24 February 2008
  5. 04:06, 24 February 2008
  6. 08:03, 24 February 2008
  7. 18:42, 24 February 2008

Edit warring is an unproductive behavior characterized by repeated, combative reversion of others' edits. You're repeated and deliberate deletion of comments and warnings left by another editor, on a page that's not yours is a violation of Disruptive editing, edit warring and Vandalism.--Hu12 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusing someone of spamming is inherently defamatory and certainly a personal attack, whether it comes in the form of WP templates or any other form. Repeatedly adding a false accusation to the talk page of an innocent editor is the very edit-warring you complain of. In addition to everything else, you need to remember that WP rules are not the most important thing in the world. You need to consider the reasons for the rules, and apply some common sense. -- Zsero (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Zsero certainly broke 3RR. He handled the situation poorly. But he was right. The handful of links being added were not spam, were not commercial, were appropriate to the articles to which they were added. I note that other editors have linked to that site before. It is a library with special on-line collections relating to Indiana history. No matter the result of the 3RR complaint, both editors should stay off user:Ashleymack's talk page. Jd2718 (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring and Disruptive editing such as.
Repeated and deliberate deletion of legitimate comments and warnings left by another editor, on a page that's not yours is a violation of Disruptive editing, edit warring and Vandalism. Whatever the rationale for doing so, does not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy and is never a reason to engage in Disruptive editing and edit warring. --Hu12 (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There's disruptive behavior here, but it's not on the part of Zsero in this instance. My recollection of the ANI discussion was that there was general agreement that the warnings weren't warranted and the links weren't spam. Daedalus969 appears to have been editing to make a point, while Zsero was trying to protect less a savvy editor. The other reverts are stale. Please stop this nonsense. R. Baley (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reporting a 3RR violation is disruptive behavior?? I'm uninvold, in this instance. I've made no edits reguarding these accounts once discussion on ANI began, and considered this closed then. Zsero resumed edit warring after the discussion. It would seem Daedalus969, was attempting to revert talk page Vandalism (not subject to 3RR). I Personaly don't care if those warnings are there or not but even that does not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy and is never a reason to engage in Disruptive editing and edit warring. --Hu12 (