Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive82

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

Noticeboard archives


Jlone78 and reported by Caspian blue (Result: Stale)[edit]

  • By circumstance evidences and identical disruptive editing pattern and same claim, the newbie, Jlone78 (talk · contribs) is obviously same as (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), all of which use ( IP. The user dishonestly said the disputed section unreferenced. After it was contested, the user also falsely labels attached reliable sources, "unreliable ones" and keeps blanking without consensus nor proper discussion. A block on the account and IP address are quite in order.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed the section as it has no reliable references as stated multiple times, and it is a biography article. This article has not received many contributions, however this part of the article was contested before, with most editors trying to remove it. I expanded the article with much information from reliable and verifiable references [1] [2]

This user has the page on their watch list (but does not contribute to the article) and reverted my edit. I claim the references are not reliable, and requested numerous times for an explanation. [3] [4] [5]. As seen the user deleted my requests, ignored me, left numerous warnings on my talk page ,and insisted that I am page blanking, dishonestly editing, and false labeling.

I noticed it would be useless, and as noted, I decided to go to the admin board. [6]. I created the account jlone78 so I could create this article [7] which is directly related to the this article so I could further expand it. I also expanded the article with lots more information [8] with many minor edits for corrections such as [9], [10]. I tried to receive help from other boards such as the reliable references board [11] and the biography board [12] for this section, as there are two users who appear to have this article on their watch list just for this. They do not contribute to the article, and as noted many times (and by other editors) the references are not reliable, or verifiable. This editor appears to be in a Korean-Japanese prejudice dispute on the wikipedia. As evident by their editing.

I don't believe to be in violation of the 3RR, as the references are not acceptable for a biography. I have clearly shown no interest, other than cleaning the article and expanding it with notable referenced information. (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The user falsely accused me of giving "threats" with the outrageous thread title on my giving him/her "blanking warnings". Moreover, the user made a hoax report on me at ANI. Such rudeness and uncooperative behaviors only cut mutual communication. The user's edits with no consensus is reverted by admin, Slp1 [13] and your claim for BLP violation on the deceased singer as well as the sources being unreliable are also false.[14]--Caspian blue (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment from a partly involved administrator I believe that there is no question that this user edited as both Jlone78 and the 220. accounts listed above (and in fact one account admits it above). Together s/he clearly violated 3RR, reverting the edits of multiple other editors who disagreed with them.[15] They were warned multiple times, both formally and informally, including by me. (listed above and [16],[17][18]) Part of the issue appears to be that s/he doesn't seem to understand that WP:BLP exceptions from 3RR apply only to Biographies of living people (the subject of the article has been deceased since 1989). S/he doesn't seem to understand that references being reliable includes newspapers, and verifiable, doesn't mean that one has to be able to check them from one's computer, and that a trip to the library may be required.[19] There are also problems understanding that we work by WP:CONSENSUS, that we need to discuss and assume good faith about other editors [20], not engaging in personal attacks accusing people of 'prejudice', 'ownership' 'dishonesty' etc.[21][22] In the short-term, with this particular article, the issue may be solved, since editors were able to find many unimpeachably reliable sources proving the point Jlone disagrees with, and peace has reigned in the last 12 hours. In the long-term, it is to be hoped that Jlone can learn more about a range of WP policies, because otherwise s/he may well run into serious problems once again, and administrator response will likely be swifter.--Slp1 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring now seems to have stopped. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reported by PikDig (Result: Stale)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [23]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [28]

The anon user keeps on insisting that Shenzhen Airlines serves Mactan-Cebu International Airport. He provides [29], [30], and [31] as sources. The first two sites does not state service to Cebu. However the last site states that they fly to Cebu, but that site is unreliable for it states that Cebu Pacific still flies from Cebu to Macau and Bangkok but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [32]). It also states that Asian Spirit flies from Cebu to Caticlan but they don't fly the said route anymore (Source: [33]). Other sources that I have which does not indicate that Shenzhen Airlines has flights from Cebu to Nanning are [], [], and [].

Aside from breaking the 3RR rule, he also violated the no personal attacks rule.

Links that shows he violated the NPA rule:

  • 1st: [34] (read his edit summary)
  • 2nd: [35] (read his edit summary)
  • 3rd: [36]

Thank you. pikdig (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Don't know how this got missed, but it's Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale now. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reported by Husond (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Insists in adding verification tags to something that has already been verified and discussed on the talk page. Húsönd 11:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursSatori Son 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Rightandright reported by Cordless Larry (talk) (Result: No Action)[edit]

United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rightandright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 09:58, 5 October 2008 (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe.")
  2. 11:10, 5 October 2008 (edit summary: "UK in northwest europe")
  3. 14:30, 5 October 2008 (edit summary: "UK is in northwest europe and is located northwest from the mainland")
  4. 14:42, 5 October 2008 (edit summary: "minor")

Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The first edit is not a revert.--KojiDude (C) 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Emptv reported by ESanchez013 (Result: No further action)[edit]

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The page has been deleted, so blocking the user would be punitive rather than preventative. As such, there will be no further action. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User75.181.153.57 reported by xyl_54 (Result: Warned then Blocked)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [37] (edit to the earlier version of account, with edits for neutrality)

  • 1st revert: [38] undone by
  • 2nd revert: [39] revert by Jackyd101
  • 3rd revert: [40] undone by
  • 4th revert: [41] revert by xyl_54
  • 5th revert: [42] undone by
  • 6th revert [43]revert by xyl_54
  • 7th revert [44] undone by

This page is the subject of an on-going, 2 year old dispute over content. The original version of this account 7 July 2006 was the subject of an edit war from September 2006 to January 2007, and again in September 2007 to March 2008. It has been changed repeatedly by an anonymous editor using a variety of IP addresses:

The content added is highly POV, and editorializing.
There has been no response to repeated requests for discussion of the issues.
The allegation in the edit summary that the original account is “completely inaccurate and extremely biased” has not been substantiated at any point.

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned[45] This is an unregistered user who may or may not have been aware of the specifics of the three-revert rule. — Satori Son 14:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Edit warring continued past warning. — Satori Son 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters reported by User:CENSEI (Result: stale)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [46]

User is well known edit warrior and has been blocked on multiple occasions for his behavior and has waged a low level and sneaky edit war on this article for weeks. CENSEI (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Stale, no reverts by this user for a couple days. Please make a report again when an edit war's in progress. east718 // talk // email // 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The 3RR might be stale on this article but a glance at the article's history shows that LoTE is still currently edit warring there. He just hasnt crossed the 3RR fence yet. CENSEI (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Because of its complexity, this issue would be better handled at WP:ANI. — Satori Son 20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Rezistenta reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: 1 week)[edit]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [51] (Note the edit summary while he removed the warning.) He's been blocked for 3RR before, he knows about the rule.

I didn't make a single revert (in my first edit I changed the text, but the article hasn't been edited in the past couple of days). He removes referenced material, he doesn't want to stop. He didn't answer on the talk page why he removed whole well-referenced paragraphs. Squash Racket (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Other Comments

Are you not ashamed lying in this manner , by changing numbers into letters or removing meterial and saying those are not reverts, what about these ?
And stop giving me false warnings, you are behaving grotesque Rezistenta (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please and keep it civil. Thank you.
None of my edits are reverts. The first one could be, but it was the very first edit of the day. These are called edits. If you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report. Squash Racket (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You have ignored the talk page, you haven't reached any consensus and you broke the agreement of the parties involved, and then you've changed some numbers with letters stipulating in edit summaries those are not reverts, after that you've reported me for's incredible... Rezistenta (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I once again ask you to keep it civil please. There are no "involved parties", you call your own edits concensus and you didn't answer on the talk page any of the raised issues. Please don't post here, this is the 3RR board, not a forum. Thank you.
Once again: if you think I broke the rule, you should file a separate report. Squash Racket (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I would have blocked both users if not for equity. Rezistenta has five unoverturned blocks - four of them for edit warring - so I'm blocking them for a week. This would be overly harsh on Squash Racket, who has one 3RR vio from over a year ago, so they're getting a free pass for now. east718 // talk // email // 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This case has just been closed. I don't really understand your words towrds me, please check the diffs that Rez. provided. These are NOT reverts. The first diff is the first edit at the article today, even if you consider this a revert, I wasn't even close to breaking the rule. Squash Racket (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
n.b. - see [52]. east718 // talk // email // 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Pioneer26 reported by Abd (Result: indef)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [53]

Latest of 33 reverts since 16 Sept version linked above.

  • 1st revert: [54] 13:19, 6 October 2008
  • 2nd revert: [55] 16:06, 6 October 2008
  • 3rd revert: [56] 17:10, 6 October 2008
  • 4th revert: [57] 17:30, 6 October 2008

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [58]

I warned both this editor and User:Devotus even though the latter seemed to be attempting to maintain consensus text. Pioneer26 continued to revert after warning. I suggested that he revert himself, that this might avoid a 3RR sanction. He reverted again after that. Devotus responded to me on my Talk and did not make further reverts. --Abd (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Account's whole history is recalcitrant edit-warring; blocked indefinitely. east718 // talk // email // 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton reported by Wikidemon (Result: No action)[edit]

  1. 19:06, 5 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "get back to the discussion")
    19:07, 5 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Close the discussion! */ add heading, "continuing the discussion") (reverts this[59] closure of discussion)
  2. 17:24, 6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (reverts this[60] addition of addendum)
  3. 17:40, 6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "six times Ayers appeared in the NY Times today")(reverts this[61] closure of discussion)
    17:41, 6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Addendums */ remove "Addendums" subsection name") (reverts this[62] addition of heading)
  4. 18:06, 6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 243476839 by Scjessey (talk)reverting disruptive edit; continuing to box discussion is also disruptive") (undoes removal of disruptive heading, moves discussion closure)
  5. 18:29, 6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Rehash Ayers discussion */ as per WP:TALK section headers are supposed to be neutral") (reverts part of heading added here[63])
  • Editor warned about 3RR here[64]. Editor's repeated re-opening of closed discussion is the subject of a current AN/I report he filed, and all of these edits follow the initiation of the AN/I discussion. Editor's comment that closure is "bullshit" to be ignored[65] and "disruptive" [66] indicates that reopening discussion and moving section headers is tendentious editing of talk page, not a mere accidental/technical violation of 3RR.

- Wikidemon (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This belongs on ANI, not here. There are no content revisions here and clearly the discussion was not over. Wikidemon, as usual, is using administrative tools designed to stifle legitimate debate on election related topics. CENSEI (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) At any rate, this is stale. CENSEI (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why the above editor is trying to attack me rather than commenting on the issue, but 4 of the 5 reverts happened in the last 3 hours. Hardly stale. Wikidemon (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Noroton has been a bit disruptive in his posts, and Wikidemon is probably right that the discussion is better left closed, but I don't see a reversion of a decision on a talk page to close down a discussion as deserving of a 3RR block. Noroton wasn't doing anything bad to the article and was engaged primarily in trying to convince people that new evidence changed the weight of the subject at hand (though he often annoyingly made these comments). Again, this doesn't seem like the correct way to handle this...perhaps a Wikiquette Alert is more appropriate. Either that or mediation. When either of those things happen, I'll strongly be on Wikidemon's side.LedRush (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is under article probation (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation). Disruption of the Obama talk page is the subject of this and perhaps a dozen other AN/I reports, as well as an indef. block every 1-2 days. If 3RR applies at all to talk pages, it applies to things like contentiously changing headings, opening and closing discussions, and so on. What else could 3RR and avoiding disruption mean for a talk page? 3RR is an electric fence. If an editor disputes the oversight of the talk page they need to take it to dispute resolution, not edit war.Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No action for now. Noroton is unlikely to get consensus support for the material he is trying to have included at Barack Obama, and his reverts of the discussion closure exceed the tolerance we normally allow on Talk pages. Those on the other side have been high-handed as well (closing discussions early), so no action is due at this point. If Noroton continues reverting closures I think he should be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't revert again, and I don't intend to try to extend the discussion on that page forever. I didn't realize I'd reverted three times in a day. This is part of the Wikidemon-Scjessey pattern of taunt/provoke, get an editor to step slightly over the line (usually that's Scjessey's part) and then quickly report a violation (almost always Wikidemon's part). I've seen them pull this on several other editors and on me on a few occasions. This is how they deal with disagreement, and I intend to go back and gather a record of other examples of this pattern in order to try to persuade them to mend the errors of their way. I really am sorry my part in this gave them a foot in the door to take up the time of other editors. Thanks for the level-headed response. -- Noroton (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, for goodness sake. Even your rule violations are my fault? My article patrol is just fine. Stop blaming other editors for your abusive behavior, and try to live within Wikipedia's behavioral policies. Wikidemon (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [67]

Also see discussion of the talkpage here where several editors attempt to explain why these edits are inaccurate and contrary to content policies. The editor contined to edit-war for their version of the article in the clear knowledge that this was against consensus. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:InaMaka reported by User:Therefore (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Previous version [68]

1st Revert: [69] which reverted my first reversion of several days before.

2nd Revert: [70]

3rd Revert: [71]

4th Revert: [72]

Page 6, the gossip column of the New York Post, has reported that Lara Logan is under investigation for taking sourveniers from Iraq. [73]. InaMaka argues that this is a reliable source and has adding this information into the article: Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy. He also is included blogs and other non-reliable sources in support, arguing that sometimes blogs are allowed. I have attempted to discuss this matter with him at Talk:Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy and all I get in response is that the Post is a reliable source.

The user was warned about the BLP violations and 3RR at User Talk:InaMaka#Lara Logan gossip. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the revert links. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:PrinceOfCanada reported by User:G2bambino (result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Previous version 21:44, 6 October 2008

1st Revert: 22:59, 6 October 2008 (Restores coat of arms and original layout.)

2nd Revert: 00:00, 7 October 2008 (Restores coat of arms)

This is a 2RR report because both PrinceOfCanada (talk · contribs) and myself are under a specific 1RR restriction initiated by Tiptoety (talk · contribs) as a condition of unblock from a week-long block, to which PrinceOfCanada (talk · contribs) agreed (I was offered similar conditions, and also agreed.) --G2bambino (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I am looking into this, and as such I ask that no admins take any action until I can review this further (though I welcome any comments). Tiptoety talk 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Also, G2bambino do not take this as an open invitation to revert PrinceOfCanada's edits. Reverting the edit he was just blocked for will get you blocked as well. Tiptoety talk 01:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel reported by Hellbus (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [74]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [79]

I've noticed that this user has run afoul of 3RR more than once. Hellbus (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not my fault if some users like Hellbus think their opinion is better than WP rules and guidelines and that consensuses basically don't matter. What's the point of contributing to the talk page of an article if the only way some people edit on WP is to revert, wait a 3RR, and rush to report it so that they won't have to explain themselves concerning the content of their reverts.
This kind of bureaucratic and automatic view of the WP (favoring 3RR denunciations instead of trying to communicate with people, waiting to hear their opinion before reverting) is what is going to kill it.
What I see is that while I wasted my time writing a detailed explanation and justification for my edits, 2 contributors plotted against me so they could have their own way in the articles (hence this denunciation).
No, I don't think blind bureaucracy should replace the process of discussion and consensus. I don't believe in it. I don't believe that if 3 reverts can be automatically sanctionned, the editor responsible for a single, unjustified and unexplained revert shouldn't be sanctionned also.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours FdF is the only one doing full reverts; VVVVV only did one full revert, and the other 2 partial. FdF has been blocked at least twice for 3RR (I say, at least, because of the blocks for edit warring which may also be 3RR.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Cory Malik reported by AussieLegend (Result: )[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [80]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [86]

I initially removed uncited speculation about a possible upcoming episode on a TV series that has ended[87] which was then reverted. Following a couple of reverts by the user I decided to research the reason for the rumour of a possible 88th episode and found that it had actually already aired but the list was US-centric rather than presenting a world-view so I made appropriate changes to the article, also making other corrections in the process[88]. I even discussed this on the article's talk page but the user continues to revert my and other editor's edits. After the user's 4th revert I discussed the issue at length on his talk page, explaining exactly why his reversions were inappropriate.[89] I then added a 3RR warning, shortly after which he made his 5th revert, which is almost identical to the original version that he reverted to.[90] To be clear, the user has not technically violated 3RR as his 5 reversions were carried out over a 2 day period however if I reverted now I have no doubt that he would continue reverting. The user visits the page infrequently enough to avoid a technical 3RR breach but reverts each time he visits. I believe he has definitely broken the spirit of 3RR and some action is warranted. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits. You need to look at the newest post at the bottonm of the talk page and look at thhe first two comments on my talk page and see that all of my reverts where bettween me & him so if i am block he should be too. You need to look at the ep page and see how he dramtically changed the page contridicting edits being made for a year. And I have removed the ep that everybody tried to remove. After Aussie gave me the 3RR warning I them removed the ep and left as is before Aussie and my edits took place, which both would need to be discussed.--Jay M. Baxter-Payne (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
"I am Cory Malik and I have and will stop reverting his edits" - This promise seems disingenuous given your latest reversion of properly cited information[91], despite the addition of the cited information being explained on the article's talk page.[92] Edit warring has gotten you blocked before. You were unblocked then becuase you promised to stop edit warring. Given the latest reversion, why should anyone believe you? --AussieLegend (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess nobody wants to touch this. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Berdov reported by Wikidemon (Result: stale, no action)[edit]

As reporter, I suggest closing this report as no action because the party has stopped edit warring. Berdov is a new Wikipedian who has expressed an interest and desire to learn policy.[93] Now that there is no current disruption he needs guidance, not blocking. Thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)'
  1. 21:43, 6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
  2. 23:44, 6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
  3. 00:29, 7 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
  4. 01:16, 7 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
  5. 01:36, 7 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")
  6. 01:54, 7 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Connection to Barack Obama */")

(repeated revert-warring in citation to poor source in BLP; unresponsive to warnings)

The tag teaming that Wikidemon and co have engaged in on Berdov is despicable, quite frankly. None of the editors so intent on owning every election 08 article have ever bothered to take the time to make their argument on the talk page, an article that is as laughable as it is transparently and nakedly POV. How an editor could argue that Commentary (magazine) is not a reliable source boggles the mind and indicates that the editors currently dominating Berdov have no intent on making these articles better, only more suited to their POV’s. If Berdov is blocked for edit warring, so too should any editor who has reverted him. This is really getting out of hand. CENSEI (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
What Censei fails to realize is that an opinion piece published in an otherwise reliable journal is not a reliable source because, guess what, it is an opinion piece. Censei, please stop your soapboxing and personal attacks. You too are close to violating 3RR. We can only report facts, not facts with a biased interpretation, which is what Censei is trying to insert. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Joshua Muravchik is a serious academic, and his article in Commentary is not an opinion piece. CENSEI (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Both of you stop it. This page is not for your stupid bickering. Berdov broke 3RR whether the article is reliable or not. You are both being disruptive and need to find some time elsewhere. GrszX 03:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Berdov was involved in edit warring .... as were the editors who were reverting him withouth explanation. CENSEI (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
No, reverting BLP violations is not edit warring. If you bothered to get in touch with this simple policies we wouldn't have this problems. Or would we? GrszX 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
With tag team action like that (tag team action that has been well demonstrated on several other articles) why would they have to violate 3RR? Also, if the WP:BLP violation is so obvious, why is everyone having such a gosh darned hard time pointing it out? Simply saying it exists does not make it so. CENSEI (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
No one else violated 3RR, and everyone else provided constructive edit summaries. Once again, the author doesn't matter, the content does. It draws conclusions based on the facts it presents, which is an opinion. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Nearly every secondary source draws conclusions based on the facts, but its good to know that some secondary sources can arbitrarily be deemed "opinion" and others be deemed "journalism". CENSEI (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, do you know what the word "commentary" means? What do you think might be found in a "Commentary Magazine?" --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever actually read Commentary? CENSEI (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Berdov reported by User:Erik the Red 2 (Result: )[edit]

Same content as above report.

Repeated (7) insertions of an unreliable source, making a claim a BLP violation. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm restoring Erik the Red's report here to show that this isn't some partisan plot like CENSEI claims, as Erik is mostly uninvolved as far as I can tell. GrszX 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not involved in the revert war either - I haven't edited the article in more than two weeks. CENSEI participated on the edit-warrior's side and is in fact in violation of WP:3RR himself on the same material on the same page.
  1. 23:22, 6 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "huh, when did this happen")
  2. 00:39, 7 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "the consensus was that violent was accurate and well enough source to be included, also, when did commentary magazine stop being a wp:rs?")
  3. 00:49, 7 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "oohhh sorry, "neocon opinion magazine" is not a good enough reason to exclude it, considering the vast numbers of very notable people who have written for it.")
  4. 01:01, 7 October 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "")
He's also edit warring in the above personal attack.[96][97][98] If someone is willing to look beyond 3RR could we please have help dealing with this disruption of this page - and perhaps Obama article probation? It is quite harsh to have to deal with this as a cost for filing a 3RR report. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The last one was not a content revert .... nice try though. CENSEI (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It reverted in the addition of a terrorism category to the article. Do not disrupt 3RR reports again.Wikidemon (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
"reverted in the addition", so when was it there last? CENSEI (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I was not aware of Wikidemon's report when I filed mine. Redundancy is not my MO. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No action. The reverting has ceased and the initial reporter has recommended taking no action. Blocking does not seem to be required here.  Sandstein  19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Soman reported by User: (Result: No violation; reporting IP blocked)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [99]

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [104]

Block him please (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the edits of the IP is blabant nonsense, comparable to vandalism. Thus I ignored the 3RR rule. As per the '3RR warning', it was issued after my fourth edit. --Soman (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The IP is adding a picture of a masked man with absolutely no verification and claiming it's Praveen Togadia. I call that vandalism. The user who added it has no other contributions and frankly, it's unverifiable. This 3RR report = bogus. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No violation. The material being reverted was vandalistic, for which I have blocked the IP.  Sandstein  19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reported by Arcayne (Result: Blocked 31 hours by User:Risker, may be lifted by any admin when editor agrees to discuss rather than revert)[edit]

Large scale pov edits without discussion, reverting to their version, despite repeated requests to discuss and seek consensus before reintroduction. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Of Arcaynes four examples, only three of the links lead to anything.
Of those three, one leads to a completely different editor and was discussed here:[105], Jennavecia states that my edit: "appears to have removed content from the page without explanation.". I discussed it with him here:[106] and has nothing to do with Arcaynes wholesale reversion of nearly Thirty individually documented and supported edits - edits which have the support in general of several other editors.
Arcayne himself reverted me nearly ninety times by using three massive reverts of all my hours of quality and well supported edits. Edits which, again, have the support of other editors. (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I corrected the "0920 (3rd revert) link; it should be viewable now. Additionally, I believe the anon is unaware of how 3RR covers all edits (excluding vandalism). It prevents edit-wars from escalating, among other things. The user was reverted by two other editors (I among them). Additionally, the anon seemed unaware that requests to discuss their edits usually means that, instead of reverting, they should actually head to the discussion page and discuss their edits. This failure to read and understand 3RR becomes more apparent when they note a single revert of a large grouping of undiscussed edits to be reverts in multiples of ten. It could have been corrected had the anon taken the time to read WP:3RR. Lastly, one editor - one - has expressed interest in the edits performed. No one is suggesting that the edits should have been edit-warred into the article, or that violating 3RR was an acceptable method of contributing. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, besides the thirty good edits of mine you reverted there are also the edits warned about here:[107] yesterday, "You seem to have a few ownership issues with the above page....which was well supported by the talk page in the lead, yet you reverted (I'm going to revert that again because what you've done is completely against consensus). I also note you've done this for basically anything you don't agree with. As it happens, you've hit three reverts in the last 24 hours so please don't revert again or you'll be blocked."
It could be a decent article if you'll allow others to contribute. (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
From still yet another editor in the same article, day before: [108] "Edit-warring to impose your personal perspective against the consensus, is a violation of Wikipedia policies and I suggest you stop." (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec x3) It is a decent article, anon. Your additions would make it better, were you to follow the same rules and requests in offering them that the rest of us do - even me. The report is about you, not my past action, which you may note didn't involve violating 3RR, but did involve a lot of discussion in which all parties found consensus. The difference is, you chose not to do that, even after being warned of the consequences. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Focus please; if Johnny jumps off the cliff, it doesn't mean you have to follow suit. This is your vio, not mine. In point of fact, i learned my lesson without violating 3RR. You chose not to. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You learned your lesson? Here's still another editor from just last night,[109] "Arcayne, your attitude on this talk page leaves something to be desired. ... the antagonistic responses you've made in various sections has made it more much difficult to resolve these very minor disputes. Even if you are absolutely convinced you are right, as you seem to be above, the simple fact is that there is no sole arbiter of content - and consensus among editors is what determines the outcome.". You reverted me Thirty times in just this one day. And not once have you offered even a hint of substance as to why even one of the edits was wrong. All you've done is continue to claim ownership and revert back to your personal version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
So, you broke 3RR because of me? Because I and no one else reverted you? Hmm, I am not sure that complaining about me is the best way to defend your breaking the rules. Sorry. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've unblocked the user based on remarks on his/her talkpage, and on a post on the article talkpage. Will reblock if the user doesn't discuss edits. Bjelleklang - talk 20:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

  • Previous version reverted to: [110]
  • Diff of 3RR Warning [111]

There was also another 3RR on the 5th:

5 reverts in 24 hours and 6 reverts in 25 hours and 10 reverts in 36 hours. Scjessey is well aware of the 3RR fence and has broken it on other occasions. This particular article is also under the Obama Article Probation. He might claim that he was taking care of BLP issues, but it is just a claim and one used by him before to edit war. If it was to stop the anon and SPA vandals, he could have just as easily askd for SP on the page. CENSEI (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

These are BLP-related reverts, patrolling vandalism and election-related WP:NPOV issues. As such, they are exempt from the three-revert rule according to WP:GRAPEVINE. Furthermore, I consider this to be a malicious report filed by an editor who has been known to do such against editors he has an ideological disagreement with. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
BLP reverts, thats certainly the story being advanced by Scjessey, but there is little or nothing to back that up. I think that 10 Reverts in 36hours speaks for itself. CENSEI (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Every edit listed above is either a BLP-related revert, a reversion of vandalism, or not a reversion. This is a necessary part of recent changes patrolling. I am considering filing a report at WP:ANI about this malicious report and your recent disruptive behavior. [Addendum] - I can see that this is not necessary, as an incident report already exists. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Scjessey. Please close this. This was maintenance, not 3RR violations. And frankly, CENSEI has already been blocked several times for similar behavior, and currently has a report at WP:ANI already. --GoodDamon 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Just another ploy. These reverts were vandalism and BLP reverts. I encourage the user who filed the complaint to remove it before doing more damage to himself. GrszX 18:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No violation; no action. Some of these reverts reflect a content dispute, but most are unproblematic reverts of vandalism or material not in compliance with WP:BLP.  Sandstein  19:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Could we get a detailed response on which reverts were reverts and which edits were judged exempt under BLP? It would help understand what type of edits fall within the BLP exception in practice. Hobartimus (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I too would be interested in seeing the breakdown. CENSEI (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jarajet89 reported by Protonk (Result:24 hours)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [112]
  1. 16:03, 6 October 2008
  2. 02:30, 7 October 2008 (edit summary: "")
  3. 13:41, 7 October 2008 (edit summary: "")
  4. 21:28, 7 October 2008 (edit summary: "")

Also, [113] on 4 Sep, [114] on 7 Sep, [115] 5 Oct.

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [116], [117]. Other warnings were provided regarding removing this specific image but did not explicitly state that the user was on the edge of or had passed 3RR.

This is also pursuant to this ANI thread and various other warnings and request on the user's talk page to stop removing images without comment. Since it is clear that the user has reverted multiple times following clear warnings from uninvolved editors and that his lack of communication has been a problem in the past, I am recommending a longer block length than usual and I am also recommending that this not be excused as "stale" should this report take some time to process. Also, please do not kick this to AN/I as it appears to be an open and shut violation of 3RR. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Eh. Looking again, one of the 7 oct diffs is not a revert. It isn't 4 in 24 hours. It is 4 in ~28-30 hours and 5 over two days and more over longer periods. The operative problem is the continuing to revert even following somewhat even handed and unambiguous communication. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tack on a revert of the same content from an IP editor with very similar contributions. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I affirm this report. While there's no technical 3RR vio, not quite, there is clear edit warring with absolutely no communication. Whether intentionally or not, the timing games the system. I can also find no evidence that there's any sort of copyright concern with the image being removed, which might mitigate this behaviour. Therefore, I believe a 24-hour block to be justified in this case. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:RMHED reported by Avruch (Result: No action; editor self-reverted)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [link]

See my reversion edit summary, RMHED describes his actions of reverting a bureaucrat on an RfA as "reverting vandalism." Avruch T 03:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • A small group of Users are trying to impose an experimental RfA on the community without consensus. That's fine if they want to follow the rules of this experiment, but they cannot insist that everyone else does. The default RfA process still holds sway. Therefore the removal of legitimate RfA votes is indeed vandalism. RMHED (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict:) For some reason the phrase "good faith vandalism by a bureaucrat" does not make sense. Icewedge (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A good faith edit is never vandalism, and when a group of editors including administrators and a bureaucrat believe that you are wrong you should perhaps consider whether you ought to keep imposing your will above theirs. Avruch T 03:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll try and talk to RMHED. Could I request that other sysops defer on this report for a couple hours? There's no need to hand out blocks for something as petty as this. east718 // talk // email // 04:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm just trying to keep my vote on an RfA from being removed against process, but if this is how Wikipedia now imposes new process then I guess the consensus model has been discarded. RMHED (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is being "imposed"; this is a one-time only (at least for now) process that is purely an experiment. What harm will be caused if it's at least tried out? In the end, once Ironholds' RfA is over, it will be a benefit purely because we get to see what works, what doesn't, what we can implement, and what we can't. CL — 04:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If anything, you regard your view of how the process should work as above those of everyone else participating. Nothing in the structure of this RfA limits your opportunity to vote - all it does is add a period of discussion and questions to the beginning of the request, with ample time to vote normally afterwards. By reverting everyone who thinks you are sabotaging an attempt at meaningful change (one which I personally don't think will be that successful), you are imposing your view against consensus and not protecting it as you seem to think. Avruch