Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive72

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Panel 2008 reported by User:Pundit (Result: Not blocked for now, will be blocked if edit warring resumes)[edit]

  • Previous versions reverted to: different varieties, in all cases Romania is one way or another placed in CE region.

  • Additional two warnings followed.

The user was warned about 3RR rule, and was also advised against vandalizing the page with un-sourced and non-factual information. The user persistently introduces Romania to Central European countries list, against an established consensus. Pundit|utter 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Not blocked for now - It has now been nearly 24 hours since the user has edited. (This is not a reflection on the report, which was submitted in a timely fashion - it's a reflection on nobody noticing it.) Had I looked at the report yesterday, I obviously would have blocked the user. At this point, I'm more inclined to wait. If the user reverts again, say something here or on my talk page and I (or someone else) will block him/her. If not, then there is no need for a preventative block. --B (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Alexander Vince reported by [[User: (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)]] (Result: Not blocked)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]

Tieto is a company, but the reported user wants the page to redirect to Tiësto and repeatedly vandalizes the page. The user has not responded to my warning.

  • Not blocked - The page you created is not the right way to create a disambiguation page and the user was correct to revert it. I will fix it so that the page will have links both places. --B (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Drabj reported by User:Biophys (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

That is a possible sockpuppet with less than 100 edits.Biophys (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is Fifth revert. See his talk page for warnings by different people.Biophys (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked Drabjd's account has been blocked indefinitely by Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), with a blocking summary of "Trolling only, likely sock of banned user Jacob Peters.". Additionally, I am not issuing warnings or blocks to any other parties involved in the warring at this time. Anthøny 18:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:N-g-Efrat reported by User:Tagishsimon (Result:1 week )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: 16:31, 1 May 2008 - Note, I hope Ive pointed to the right version, but I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "Previous version reverted to".
  • Diff of 3RR warning: No 3RRW given ... This is a notification of an edit war that has been going on since 23 April 08, and which has had 12 reverts to date. Amply sufficient messages of concern have been left on User talk:N-g-Efrat and User talk:Zolferkatter to no effect.

User:N-g-Efrat turned up on Wessex Institute of Technology on the 23rd April, and wishes to add a controversial section into the article. He has been pointed to the discussion of the issue on Talk:Wessex Institute of Technology#Removal of the Controversy section:. Then up pops a single issue account, User:Zolferkatter, seeking to add the same thing. Appeals on User talk:Zolferkatter have gone unheeded. Today, in combination, N-g-Efrat and Zolferkatter have exceeded 3RR. It's certainly a sockpuppet; whether they're using th same IP or not is open to question.

See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/N-g-Efrat and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/N-g-Efrat --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week both User:N-g-Efrat and User:Zolferkatter. The first for edit warring, and the second for actual 3RR violation. If an admin closes the WP:SSP case as confirmed, then an indef for Zolferkatter would be appropriate per WP:SOCK. Zolferkatter, whether sock or not, reverted four times. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Contact cascade reported by User:AVand (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [2]
Comment: Only three reverts are listed. It takes four reverts to violate the three-revert rule. Escape Orbit has also done three reverts. The article talk page has not been edited since September. I encourage both users to discuss the article content on the talk page. (non-admin opinion.) Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Edit warring to insert unsourced negative information about the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The language he was warring to include seems to violate WP:NPOV. Another editor invited him to restate it neutrally and provide sources but he did not do so. I counted four reverts in 25 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai reported by User:Nicklausse (Result: Stale)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [3]

This was in turn reverted by Mikkalai 16:43, 28 April 2008

This user is essentially trying to make Nairi part of Armenian history.

Mikkalai is continuing to revert the content of this page [4], as well as reverting another template [5]. Nicklausse (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverts by Nicklausse:

Previous version reverted to: 00:40, 28 April 2008

Coppertwig (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1st: yes, this is part of the Ancient Near East.
3rd: that was not added - it was copy-edited and moved.
4th: Somebody else came along and reverted to a much earlier version, undoing changes that even administrators had made to the article.
Nicklausse (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Re the third diff: OK, not all those words were added. The word "contend" was changed to "tackle" by Mikkalai and changed back to "contend" by Nicklauss, so it is a revert. I have the impression other material was reverted too because the diff of the two Nicklauss versions (15:41 and 16:20, April 28) looks (at a glance) as if it has fewer differences than the diff of the Mikkalai and Nicklauss versions (16:04 to 16:20). Possibly a move of material was reverted. Reverting to a version by an administrator is not an excuse to violate the 3RR rule. In any case, the reverting seems to have stopped; almost no editing on the article at all in the past 24 hours, but instead there is discussion on the talk page. That's good. (non-admin opinion.) Coppertwig (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has cared enough to do anything in 3 days, so I guess we can call it stale. --B (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Bless sins reported by User:Merzbow (Result: Stale)[edit]

Games 3RR by reverting 4 times in 25 hours and 10 minutes. He's a very experienced user who's been blocked for this in the past. - Merzbow (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly notice that it is not 24 hours. Yes it is a little over 24 hours, but I never intended to game the system. If I like gaming the system, then Merzbow should be able to find other examples. Yet the history of this article and other articles show that I have restricted myself to no more than 2 reverts per day (often even 1 revert a day).
Secondly, there is a question on Merzbow's involvement. Merzbow reverted me on Banu Qurayza [6] without even caring to discuss why or joining the discussion on the talk page. From that perspective Merzbow's contribution looks like that of a drive-by reverter. Isn't drive-by reversion against the spirit of 3rr?Bless sins (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid I might bear some responsibility for this report as I mistakenly talked about such a violation on the article talk page and BS's user talk page (asking him to self-rv). I was mistaken in thinking that these reverts all occurred within 24 hours (and mistaken on the extent of the last revert).
However, I do think that this reverting is disruptive, no matter whether BS just got lucky or was waiting for the 25 hour mark. I certainly think it is not proper for him to fault Merzbow for his reverting or the report. Str1977 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I too find your reverting disruptive (did you notice it reduces the article by 2k everytime?). But this is not the avenue to solve disputes. Do you also realize that you've made 3 reverts in less than 8 hours?Bless sins (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
BS, this is not the venue to discuss my edits but yours. I do not engage in constant blanket reverting aside from countering yours. I actively work towards finding solutions. I made three reverts and stopped then because I follow the rules. I do not care that your version as 2 KB less litter included. Str1977 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Str1977, the edit conflict form which the edits are being reported is something you too were engaged in. You said that you "stopped then because I follow the rules". Well I didn't break the rules either, as I did not make more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. "I actively work towards finding solutions" as do I by actively engaging on the talk page, and responding to you before I revert. I'm not sure the same can be said of Merzbow, who made a drive by revert.Bless sins (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
And working towards finding solutions includes reverting 4 times in 25 hours? Once I figure out what the heck is going on I will join in the talkpage, but I have every right to revert an immediately objectionable POV edit if I see one, where I see one. - Merzbow (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If reverting 3 times in less than 8 hours is (as Str1977 did), then reverting in less than 26 hours (but more than 25) can also be considered as working towards a solution. During that same 25 hour period I made 9 responses on the talk page. "Once I figure out what the heck is going on I will join in the talkpage" The talkpage is where I explained my revert. So you reverted without knowing "what the heck [are]" my reasons (or others) were? That's indicative of a drive by revert.Bless sins (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Both you and Str1977 need to cut it out. This edit summary exemplifies the wrong attitude you both seem to have: that someone else's reverting justifies your own. Both of you need to do what Str1977 said and stop with your double standards and quit reverting (and yes, I said both of you). You're both edit warring, which is to say you're both being disruptive, and I'm rather disinclined to take any action that doesn't treat you equally. Can both of you just stop reverting, or am I going to have to get out the hammer? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me just state that I take exception to this "everyone's equally bad" view. If one editor repeatedly reverts to a version that he knows to be controversial, are we not allowed to resist? Str1977 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think any of the versions is considered controversial by the other person :) I personally don't think attempts to get any of the parties blocked is a good way to go. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't have submitted this report. There has been a long dispute on the Qurayza article; there was a mediation but it was closed as being failed. There has been much discussion on the talk page. This is not gaming the system to me, to be sure; and in my opinion filing such reports and trying to get one editors blocked is by no means, by no means the way to go. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me make it clear that I don't fault Merzbow for making this report. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nobody has cared enough to do anything in three days, so I guess we can call it stale. --B (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:B626mrk reported by User:Skomorokh (Result: No block)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: 15:11, May 1, 2008 (versions reverted to are slightly different; see diffs)

Thank you for your time. Skomorokh 19:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Not blocked - he hasn't edited the article in 24 hours and in his last comment on the talk page, he seemed content with the result. As the edit warring has stopped, there is no need for a preventative block. --B (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Not blocked)[edit]

Please don't embolden your comments. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not blocked for now - he hasn't edited in nearly 24 hours so it is moot. If either the edit warring or civility issues return, please make a note here and we can block this IP. --B (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Koov reported by User:Ha! (Result: 1 month )[edit]

Comment: Even if the IP edit is unrelated, there are 5 reverts within 24 hours. The reverts are deleting one or more of the coats of arms of Kosovo, Palestine, and Western Sahara. I've posted a 3RR warning to WikiDegausser at 02:22, 2 May 2008. (non-admin opinion.) Coppertwig (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 month Yikes! Persistent nationalist POV warring over many different articles. The reverts noted above came right after another 24-hour block. So far more than 95% of his Wikipedia edits have been reverted. Blocked for disruptive editing. No objection to review by another admin; an indef block is a tempting option. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
He probably also uses IP address (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Carl.bunderson reported (Result: =no vio)[edit]

Note please: That this user uses "rv v" (meaning rv vandalism) in his edit summaries but he is not reverting any vandalism, if anything he is actually vandalizing himself. He probably doesn't understand what "rv v" means or is using that to fool others because the talk page makes it clear that that edit is correct but he uses this edit summary since he doesn't have any good reason to rv.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: 07:44, 2 May 2008 This user has already been aware of 3RR and was warned about it before but an admin warned him this time too. He disregarded that admin, used foul language with him, and continued his senseless edit warring.
Evidently, the user Carl was reverting was a banned user, meaning his reverts were acceptable (though "rv v" still doesn't apply here). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Some reasons why he should still be blocked:
  • He did not know he was edit warring with a sockpuppet
  • That user could have been falsely blocked as a sock
  • Carl.bunderson is known for childish edit warring on many articles
  • Carl.bunderson is claiming that that language is not Persian, I think someone who knows their own language would know what the language is better
  • He is defying years of consensus on this, you can see for yourself throughout the entire article the language has always been referred to as Persian always, but now he insists that in the top of the infobox it be called something else for no good reason.
  • Conclusion, even if that was a banned user, Carl.bunderson was still edit warring senselessly.

User:Krzyzowiec reported by User:M0RD00R (Result: blocked, 24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [7]

National Revival of Poland

Jan T. Gross

The user was today reported for disruptive behavior and personal attacks such as this [8] here [9] was issued final warning [10] but it didn't help at all as can be plainly seen. M0RD00R (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that about 2.5 days might be appropriate given that the last two edits shown are in vio of 3RR and were done after a final warning by Black Kite which also referenced a personal attack. Anybody else want to weigh in here? R. Baley (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The block is per edit warring at that article, as well as incivility and personal attacks (viz: [11]) towards other editors on related discussion pages. Anthøny 23:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Kt66 reported by User:Wisdombuddha (Result: Not blocked, will submit checkuser)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [12]

Thank you for your time. This user is repeatedly reverting any other editor and not discussing with them.Wisdombuddha (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Version of the above, reformatted: Previous version reverted to: 15:59, 3 May 2008

The other edits may or may not also be reverts. Truthsayer62 may have also violated 3RR. Wisdombuddha has done 2 reverts and Helen37 has done 1 revert. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Not blocked as the user has retired so it is now moot - I'm going to ask for a checkuser on Truthsayer62, Helen37, and Wisdomofbuddha for obvious reasons. --B (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by User:asams10 (Result: No violation)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [13]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [25]

Comments: This is edit warring. He is doing the same thing on two other articles, all of which is being reverted by multiple users and violates several Wikipedia and WP:Firearms project policies. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The reverts span much more than 24 hours. I don't see more than about 2 reverts in a 24-hour period. Neither nor asams10 has been making use of the article talk page to explain their edits. Although has received a number of warnings, the warnings don't seem to me to explain clearly what is wrong with the particular material the user wants to insert., please note that editwarring is not endorsed as an editing method. When others revert your changes, you should realize that your changes don't have consensus, and you should discuss the changes on the article talk page and get agreement among the editors before re-inserting. Note that you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't violate the 3RR rule. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and discuss the situation with other editors. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No violation --B (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Matt Lewis reported by User:Wotapalaver (Result: No action)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [26]

Wotapalaver (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Defence: I've been stitched up here with the use of an IP - and a weak 'warning' came after my last edit too. We were told to discuss changes when the article was recently locked - Wotapalaver has simply carried on in the same vein. I didn't intend to 3RR - but this guy is writing a entire article to his POV. I have explained why I feel he is "spinning exaggerations" and others agree: he does not have consensus. I feel I have been provoked here by an IP that seems to have turned up to replace Wotapalaver's edits - I was reverting the IP without considering a 3RR total - stupid maybe, but this has happened too easily, in my eyes. My reverts weren't all on the same text - but they certainly were for the less-biased spirit of the pre-existing edit (which was aleady a compromise from my own point of view).--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: I was reverting the "Many Irish" line in the edit (a long dispute), not the Irish language line (which I know nothing about, but others were clearly unhappy with). The problem was that it seems two separate controversial issues were being made in the same constantly replaced edit: I did say this in Talk too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Without making a clear decision right now, it appears to me that blocking Matt Lewis would be rather pointless, as this seems to be an extremely widespread edit war. Normally, I'd just protect the article for this; however, it's already been protected twice recently, making me skeptical that doing it again will solve the problem and reluctant to lock out non-edit warring users again. I think we need a better solution here; possibly one where we're willing to liberally give out edit warring blocks (ideally, some of those "discretionary sanctions" might be nice...) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The article has been full-protected many times in the past, and this has not led to a stable version. The entire edit war we are seeing now started after 16:02 UTC on 1 May, when the last protection expired. How about we offer a tricky plan:
  • (A) Each editor who went over 1RR during the most recent war (1 May 16:00 up through 3 May 03:00 UTC) would be subject to an article ban. They would not be allowed to edit the British Isles article during the rest of the month of May.
This list of editors restricted consists of: Bastun, Matt Lewis, Thingg, Wotapalaver and the two 78.19.* IPs.
  • (B) The ban would be lifted for any of the editors who can come to agreement among themselves on a compromise version of the article. The group includes Bastun, Matt Lewis, Thingg and Wotapalaver. The IP doesn't have to join the agreement, but if he doesn't he is still banned from the article during the month of May. Editors freed from the ban must still observe 1RR for the rest of May. (One revert per article per day).
  • (C) All editors besides the above five are restricted to 1RR for the rest of May on this article.
  • The article ban would be enforced by a delayed 3RR block that would be given to whoever resumes editing before the end of May, unless they've signed to a compromise. Please let me know your opinion of this plan. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Note. The discussion thread that used to be here has been moved to Talk:British Isles#Discussion of how to resolve the 3RR complaint. Please add any additional comments there. I've marked this 3RR complaint as 'On hold pending discussion'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Closing. I am closing this complaint as 'No Action.' I've no objection if another admin wants to follow up anyway. The exposure of the issue at 3RR seems to have temporarily halted the edit war, and the Talk discussion is extremely vigorous. I'm aware that at least three editors skirted the rules about number of reverts. Admins at 3RR do have a tendency to recall the specifics of repeated problems concerning the same file and the same editors, and please don't assume that blocks won't be used in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Zhenqinli reported by User:Oiboy77 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [32]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [37]

Comments: This user has repeatedly being reverting an article where most of the editors have come to a consensus on the issue at hand on the talk page. As a new editor on wikipedia I urge you to look at the edit history of the article carefully some of the edits by people were not reverts. Simply adding information or correcting grammar.Oiboy77 (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The above relevant background and facts should be taken into considerations. --Zhenqinli (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Please look at the edit history carefully 4 edits were made within a 24 hour period. Also please see It cleary shows that it has been discussed and sources have been provided by various editors that support the statement. Regardless of that fact 4 reverts within 24 hours is a violation of the 3 revert rule.Oiboy77 (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Also it was made clear to you that adding a link to Category:Propaganda in the People's Republic of China does not violate any policy regarding a Biography of a Living person as it is not refering to her as a propagandist and refering to the incident itself.Oiboy77 (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Whether Propaganda should be used as a category or not has been discussed on the talk page, with the conclusion that there are reliable source supporting the inclusion in the Propaganda category. If you ahve concerns about the category User:Zhenqinli should have taken that to the talk page instead of reverting one edit after another. See Talk:Jin_Jing#Official_policy_from_Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.23Categories for the relavant discussion. Novidmarana (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Skyring reported by User:WebHamster (Result: Not blocked)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [38]

There is currently a heated discussion taking place on Template talk:Infobox Television about Torchwood and Doctor Who about the use of flags in the infobox template. During the discussion on the infobox talk page Islander (talk · contribs) proposed that no changes should be made until a consensus is reached. Skyring (talk · contribs) a user who has been blocked several times for edit warring and 3RR violation, has ignored this 4 times since the suggestion was made, 3 times within 15 minutes today. In spite of the edit summaries used Skyring was in full knowledge of the ruling, in fact he even voted on it. -WebHamster 13:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • not blocked - reverting three times (which you did yourself, by the way) is outside the scope of this noticeboard. This is silly and if it continues, then we may have to implement Edokter's proposal. A better idea would be to just quit reverting it and wait until some kind of agreement is reached in the discussion. Who really cares if the infobox has a flag or not? --B (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion on the reasons for the edit war is immaterial, but your ability to count is. I reverted twice (not three times as you erroneously stated) to maintain the status quo of the ruling stated in the discussion. Regardless 3RR is 3RR whether you think the reason is silly or not. But now I know what the threshold is I can do what I like, thanks for the heads up. --WebHamster 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In case this isn't clear, one must revert four times to violate 3RR, not three. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Rsazevedo (Result:protected)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [42]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [48]

User has been consistently changing this player's statistics, removing properly sourced information retrieved from the player's official website, and inserting inappropriate ones from dubious websites. He made the same alterations on the same page using other IP numbers as well, such as, and Rsazevedo msg 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Out-of-control edit war: and Rsazevedo are continuing to revert each other rapidly numerous times in violation of 3RR. Neither user has made any effort to explain their edits on the article talk page. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
My reversal hardly needs explaining, since it consists of information previously contained in the article before the aforementioned user's first edit. However, I did include my point of view in the Edit summary of the first reverts. If any proof is needed that the user is wrong, is the fact that other editors have deleted his edits as well. It would be in the best interest of everybody to try to watch and understand what's going on before passing an opinion. Rsazevedo msg 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, no, Coppertwig is right. Both parties are edit warring. Since the user in question is hopping IPs, this situation is rather complex, as it's difficult to block both editors. I'm leaning toward protection right now pending any other input. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. I am "edit-warring". I guess next time I should just let the page be vandalised... (sigh) Rsazevedo msg 22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
A dispute over sources is not vandalism. And if this is vandalism, it shouldn't be here, but at WP:AIV. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The user was reported at WP:AIV. And if you'd compared both sources, you'd understand that in this case it is, indeed, vandalism. Rsazevedo msg 22:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll assume it is vandalism. If so, there's no need to report here. This place is for edit warring only. Take vandalism reports only to AIV and, if protection is need, WP:RFPP. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In any case, the page is now semi-protected, and I guess that should settle things down. Greetings, Rsazevedo msg 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ejanev reported by User:Laveol (Result:warning, page watched)[edit]

  • The user ecidently knows what 3RR is as previously he was blocked for logging out and reverting with his IP when he was out of reverts with the original account. See the notices on his talkpage [49] and [50]. Moreover he has tones of other notices for disrupting editing (apart from mine). --Laveol T 20:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Both users are edit warring and misusing the term "vandalism" to refer to the other's edits. Both need to stop. I'm watching the article and am ready to block either editor if he or she reverts again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've labeled his edits as vandalism only cause he stalks me and undoes my edits. And moreover he removes info which is sources - I tried to explain to him why sources are needed and added, but he keeps repeating the same stuff again and again. --Laveol T 22:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Stalking and undoing is bad, yes, but not vandalism. Not all misbehaviour on Wikipedia is vandalism. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oks, I couldn't find a more suitable thing on TG, but it's pretty close (removal of sources and sourced material with no proper reason, I mean)--Laveol T 22:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed a lengthy comment by Ejanev, as it was solely about content. This board is not for resolving content disputes, but for dealing with user conduct, specifically, edit warring/3RR. It may be appropriate to resurrect this comment elsewhere, such as on the talk page or a dispute resolution-related page, so I'll give the diff to the comment here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
He has posted it on a number of places already - you shouldn't have bothered :) --Laveol T 00:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks "Heimstern". The case of "Laveol" is even harder one. He has not pushed the Bulgarian POV for the Macedonian articles just at "Lazar Kolisevski" but for many of them, including the once of the highest importance to the Macedonians.

Please watch his [actions] to see if this case with [Lazar Kolisevski] and myself is an isolated one or a pattern with many articles about Republic of Macedonia and other contributors of Wikipedia. This has already happened: Promoting the Bulgarian POV in articles about Republic of Macedonia by "Laveol's" and other contributors actions. Please let not make a climate where people masked under "Wikipedia Contributors" seed Propaganda negating their neighbors and taking away from them their right to express there views.

Sincerely, --Ejanev (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Krzyzowiec reported by User:M0RD00R (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [51]

Previous reports on disruptive editing [52], [53] [54]M0RD00R (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC).

  • 48 hours, nominator warned --B (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Red4tribe reported by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: 1 week)[edit]

User is repeatedly adding a map that he has drawn (and that was challenged for WP:NOR, WP:SYN reasons). On numerous occasions he has been asked not to put up maps that he has drawn himself. Having an uphill struggle asking him to use reputable sources, not self-published websites.

Also multiple reversions at Fall of Constantinople following disagreement with another editor there. I also have reason to believe that he has used a sockpuppet account to revert changes at the same Dutch Empire article - not the first time that he has been accused. I have requested a new checkuser here [56].

He has also commitied the 3RR rule. Just take a look. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

[57] [58] [59] [60] [61] (Red4tribe (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

He is removing a reliable map without any good reason why. Has also done the same with many other things. (Red4tribe (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC))
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Edit-warring to insert a map, drawn by himself, of the use of Dutch language around the world that seems to be inadequately confirmed by reliable sources. It is taking liberty with our policies to think this insertion of personal POV is an innocent matter. Checkuser has confirmed that SaudiArabia44 is a sock of this editor. I think that an indef block of SaudiArabia44 ought to be considered, but the 3RR submitter should submit his own report at WP:SSP documenting some form of collusion or abusive editing before this is done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:NuclearVacuum reported by User:Miyokan (Result: Blocked for 24 hours - reporting user warned for edit warring)[edit]

User knows full well about the 3RR rule as he just 3RR warned me.[62]. He put this page (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR) on his watchlist as soon as he reverted for the 4th time. [63].--Miyokan (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Reported user blocked for 24 hours. The reporting user has also edit warred extensively over the past few days, but it is not clear whether they were aware of the 3RR policy. I have given them a warning. TigerShark (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Yaf (Result: 96 hours)[edit]

|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SaltyBoatr (talk ·