Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:36, 17 February 2008

Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.
Administrators: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151
1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475
476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324	325
326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Violations

Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.

User:Wndl42 reported by User:ScienceApologist (Result: protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 14:07, 10 February 2008

1st revert: 14:42, 10 February 2008
2nd revert: 14:47, 10 February 2008
3rd revert: 14:52, 10 February 2008
4th revert: 16:14, 10 February 2008
5th revert: 19:53, 10 February 2008
6th revert: 09:28, 11 February 2008
7th revert: 10:03, 11 February 2008
Diff of 3RR warning: 09:10, 11 February 2008

Notes

2nd revert reverts the removal of irrelevant sources while maintaining one intermediate edit.
3rd revert reverts the lead while retaining one intermediate edit.
6th revert reverts the lead while retaining four intermediate edits.

User seems convinced that he owns this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA, can you kindly check the diffs. I think two or three may be mal-formed and make it difficult to understand what you are reporting. Ronnotel (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking them now. Why can't we come up with an easier system? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected for a week as there is edit warring by multiple users. Sort it out on talk. Vsmith (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking in Vsmith, the relevant discussions are here and a previous identical incident of SA's non-consensus massive content deletions are discussed here. Please consider restoring the article to the stable consensus state it was before SA performed this series of edits without (a) prior discussion or (b) any other efforts to establish consensus since. WNDL42 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus state that Wndl142 refers too did not in fact exist. The only consensus was that nobody wanted to do any editing of the article for fear that it would start an edit war of the type that we are now witnessing. This article has been in dispute for over a year both by myself and others. I support SA's edits as they put the content of this article in the proper context with respect to QM and science in general. Dr. Morbius (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Morbius, please clarify:

(1) re: "consensus state...did not in fact exist"...well, in fact there was a clearly documented January 10 consensus against the edits SA has been pushing here and elsewhere in talk. As regards "in dispute for over a year" and in the context of WP:CCC, please comment specifically on how you can assert that the Jan 12. consensus "did not exist".

The consensus exists only among people who defend this topic. If you go back and look at all the comments made on the talk page you will find many people who do not. Therefore there is no "consensus". Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(2) As regards this massive and undiscussed content deletion on Feb. 10, virtually identical to the Jan 10 non-consensus edits and exactly a month later, but now with dozens of article refs (indeed the entire sections) merely blanked, refs casually deemed "mostly unrelated" by SA in edit summary, please explain specifically how this massive deletion can possibly reflect "consensus" of the many editors who worked to add them, or "consensus" of any kind?. Please comment specifically.

(3) Please use your best efforts to add some detail as to exactly how the result of SA's edits here represent a more "proper context" than the state it had been in previously. Specifically, please. This is the 3rr noticeboard, not a place for straw polling version preferences, your support here, especially to the extent it was absent on the talk page, has absolutely nothing to to with the existence or non-existence of a consensus, either on Jan 10 or on the day of this report. The edit warring you refer to has been practiced repeatedly and persistently by SA, in fact he performed these edits immediately after his most recent 72hr block expired.

(4) Please comment on how the above mass deletion described in (2), when repeated in identical form on Feb 11, should not be characterized as "edit warring" on SA's part.

Finally Dr. Morbius, as you left the topic's talk page in Oct. 2007, and have been absent since, while I did not join until Jan 2008...why are you here commenting on a 3rr complaint (and making pronouncements on "consensus") involving a topic you dropped months before I joined it, regarding an editor you have no experience with? Your comments have the appearance of lacking context, and your sudden appearance here is puzzling.

Now, as I note that SA has still not complied with Ronnote1's request above to clarify his diffs, the lack of which "make it difficult to understand what [SA] is reporting", SA's complaint takes on it's proper characterization. I've provided the diffs, where are SA's? WNDL42 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I haven't commented on this topic since October doesn't mean I have left it. I only comment on something when I feel like I have something to add. I haven't commented during the latest discussion involving SA, you and others because I fully support SA's view on this topic and don't feel like I would have anything else to add to the discussion. I feel that I have made my opinions about this topic clear as exemplified by all of my comments within this talk section going back to Dec. of 2006. Dr. Morbius (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yaf reported by User:Rezguy (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [1]

1st revert: [2]
2nd revert: [3]
3rd revert: [4]

Diff of 3RR warning: [5]

3RR cited in private talk from user Rezguy^^^.

User has continued and repeatedly reverted biased page back to original biased state without commentary justifying bias. Thanks, Rezguy

Three reverts alone don't make a violation. A fourth would be required. Additionally, your previous version is the same as the third revert. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:KellyAna reported by User:Bleek25 (Result: Stale)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 23:32, 9 February 2008

She has clearly Broken the 3RR rule.Also deleted a warning that i but on her talk page see here. Bleek25 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of blocks or other action for 3RR violation is to stop an edit war. These reverts happened three days before the report, so acting on it would be futile. Reports should be filed as soon as may be after the fourth revert. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maniainc reported by User:OverlordQ (Result: Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

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

01:27, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191318786 by GlassCobra (talk)")
01:33, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191319878 by JetLover (talk)")
01:38, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191318786 by GlassCobra (talk)")
02:56, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191334529 by GlassCobra (talk)")
03:00, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191336862 by GlassCobra (talk)")
03:08, 14 February 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 191337915 by OverlordQ (talk)")

Diff of warning: here

—Q ^{T C} 03:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User has claimed that they are Barton's official representation: see here. GlassCobra 03:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here Q ^{T C} 03:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maniainc is by no means the only person to have broken 3RR on that page, several other editors have and should know better. Protected for 10 days. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiarrangementeditor reported by Daniel J. Leivick (Result: 31 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [6]

1st revert: [7]
2nd revert: [8]
3rd revert: [9]
4th revert: [10]

Diff of 3RR warning: [11]

User has been blocked at least once for edit warring and is at it again. Going against consensus to add an inferior image that they uploaded. Has been warned numerous times and is well aware of 3RR rule. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor should be well aware of the 3RR by now. Blocked for 31 hours. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xareu bs reported by 74.228.158.68 (Result: page protected for 4 days)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [12]

1st revert: [13]
2nd revert: [14]
3rd revert: [15]
4th revert: [16]

User is blatantly defacing referenced statements (ex country of origin of reggaeton), and reverting to a version with a number of obviously POV statements. User is also using POV reasoning when doing the reverts ("just go to a club and you'll see...." etc). Posted to view the discussion page, but nothing on the talk page supports any of those edits or reverts (aside from POV comments on the talk page from members, no references). User finally posted to talk page, but made a 4th revert before even waiting for anyone to respond. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion page for this article,where referencesare shown. Blatantly?. I´am attaching references and links to press news and lyrics for songs. And the subsequent reverts in the talk page, well, mere ortography&links correction, as you may check. I´m not so used to the wiki interface. Of course, all reverted by an anom. user.--Xareu bs (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, none of the references mentioned on the talk page support any of the additions made. Song lyrics about gasoline also aren't an adequate reference. In any case, the user hasn't even attempted to actually include references in the wiki itself when reverting. The page doesn't need to be protected, but the user could use a cool down period and a primer on proper reference use. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added those lyrics because they are the two biggest hits of this music up to know, with blatant sexist content. Do you want to link to wiki definition of harmony&melody?. Why do you not consider a formal complain by an Spanish official bureau about this music?. This anonimous user ignores those facts; does not he consider different opinions that his?--Xareu bs (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The additions made are noticeably POV, and inarguably unsourced, end of story (look at the reverts, none of his edits are sourced). This is the last post I'm going to make about this as I don't want to share a suspension with this guy with a back-and-forth on the noticeboard. If a user doesn't know how to include references for questionable additions, they shouldn't be editing wikis until they learn. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second revert is to a different article. No violation. Take discussion to your talk pages or the article talk page please. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, looking at the article history, there's an obvious edit war. Page protected for 4 days. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Svetovid reported by User:Squash Racket (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 08:21, 13 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: No need for warning, he has been blocked for breaking 3RR at the very same article about a week ago, also made reports himself. He is well aware of the rule as I see on his talk page[17][18].

This user deletes relevant, referenced information and references from the article. He was blocked a week ago for breaking 3RR at the very same article. He reverted three different editors in the past two days and obviously won't stop voluntarily. I tried to keep his constructive edits, but he changes the structure of the article in a way that it loses basic transparency.
For some reason while he is repeatedly deleting reliable references he adds "refimprove" tags. He called me a 'vandal' several times despite asking him to refrain from such behavior. Squash Racket (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours. Users are encouraged to develop consensus on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brfc97 reported by User:Bill (Result: 8 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 06:37, 13 February 2008

1st revert: revert to orginal version 14:21, 13 February 2008
2nd revert: revert to orginal version 14:25, 13 February 2008
Edited new version to remove citations and insert original research 15:58, 13 February 2008
3rd revert: revert to edited version 16:25, 13 February 2008
4th revert: re-addition of removed content 11:36, 14 February 2008
5th revert: revert to edited version 12:10, 14 February 2008
6th revert: revert to edited version 12:28, 14 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 10:31, 11 February 2008

This page was suffering from an edit war so I opened up a discussion on the talk page (it should be noted that Brfc97 removed previous discussion about the topic that's being warred over 07:48, 7 February 2008). A consensus was achieved by a few editors over the best way to present the information. Brfc97 has been reverting edits while myself and other editors have been requesting that he discuss his concerns on the talk page. This is quite complex as some of the changes have stuck, but others are being reverted. Also, there are possible ownership issues as Brfc97 mentions that he created the section when reverting. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original section in question was created over a year ago. I was the one who created it (under my IP address at that time) but I don't know whether that will show in the archives or not. I have discussed the situation on the talk page but clearly my views have not been addressed or taken under consideration. It would be best to present the list in alphabetical order only as there is clearly a dispute over the order. A survey from 5 years ago is no longer relevant in 2008 as the situation has possibly changed since then. I would be quite happy to keep the section if the order remains alphabetical only. Otherwise the section should be removed.

Also the user above is not a supporter of Blackburn Rovers therefore I would dispute his knowledge of the subject is at the same level as mine.

Brfc97 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of those are clearly reverts, but there are certainly four in there. No block history so 8 hours. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:JK Cromwell reported by User:Serendipodous (Result: 24 hrs)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diff of 3RR warning: 20:15, 13 February 2008

JK Cromwell has been repeatedly adding unsourced information to JK Rowling despite repeated warnings. S/he has also engaged in similar behaviour on List of best-selling books, Sears Tower, and Daniel Radcliffe, despite repeated warnings on his/her talkpage. Serendi ^podous 14:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours block, for this and other disruption. Serendipodous, next time, please use the {{uw-3rr}} template to alert users. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Strider12 reported by User:MastCell (Result: Warning)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:59, 13 February 2008

1st revert: 20:22, 13 February 2008 (undoes prior edit)
2nd revert: 22:37, 13 February 2008
3rd revert: 21:19, 14 February 2008
4th revert: 22:58, 14 February 2008 (reverts this edit from the previous day)
5th revert: 23:29, 14 February 2008: undoes the immediately preceding edit

Diff of 3RR warning: User is well aware of WP:3RR and has previously been blocked for violating it.

These are 5 reverts in just over 24 hours. Given this editor's prior block for edit-warring on this and the related abortion and mental health article, and her long-term focus on edit-warring on these ttwo articles going right up to 3 reverts per day on many occasions, I'm bringing it here as a clear violation of the spirit of WP:3RR. Note that IronAngelAlice (talk · contribs) has also been edit-warring on this article, largely over tags; though I don't see >3 reverts on her part, I'll leave the disposition of that up to the reviewing admin. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No violation here due to timing - issued another warning. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mathewignash reported by User:Apostrophe (Result: No violation)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 10:19, 6 February 2008

Revert warring over adding a POV (or weasel wordy) sentence to the article. ' 02:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #2 isn't a revert and #4 is a different user. Only three actual reverts == no violation. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is Diff #2 not a revert? He's changing it. To say the same thing. ' 17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edito*Magica reported by User:Collectonian (Result:Page was protected; no action)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:53, 14 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 18:50, 14 February 2008

Edito*Magica created List of Goodnight Sweetheart episodes earlier today to split out the plain episode list from the main Goodnight Sweetheart article. I cam in and fixed the name, then put the episode list in the standard episode format.[20]. Despite his version being incomplete, Edito*Magica reverted it. We went back and forth. After the 4th revert, an administrator warned us BOTH not to revert again[21] and [22] at 19:27. Thirty minutes later, Edito*Magica ignored that edict and reverted the article again. In fair disclosure, this is also part of a larger on-going issue of edit warring that Edito*Magica has also been conducting List of Keeping Up Appearances episodes and that resulted in an ANI being filed against him. Edito*Magica has receive warnings on the talk page there and in the ANI to stop reverting. With KUA, he's been reverting once or twice a day, while in this case he has blatantly violated 3RR after a warning and an admin warning to stop. Collectonian (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:JAF1970 reported by User:MrStalker (Result: 12 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:36, 15 February 2008

1st revert: [23]
2nd revert: [24]
3rd revert: [25]
4th revert: [26]

Diff of 3RR warning: 01:12, 14 February 2008

Revert war between JAF1970 and Sillygostly. MrStalker ^(talk) 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both blocked for 12 hours. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sillygostly reported by User:MrStalker (Result: 12 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 14:48, 21 January 2008

1st revert: [27]
2nd revert: [28]
3rd revert: [29]
4th revert: [30]

Diff of 3RR warning: 01:12, 14 February 2008

Revert war between JAF1970 and Sillygostly. MrStalker ^(talk) 12:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tasc0 reported by User:Same As It Ever Was (Result:No violation, rollback removed)

Three-revert rule violation on Bangin' on Wax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User was previously reported by User:Chubbles for the same thing on Bloods & Crips. I tried to explain that the info on the article is not about the album but the group yet he continues to revert.Same As It Ever Was (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only two reverts of late. I have removed this user's rollback privileges, though, as it is being used inappropriately. --B (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Secret2 reported by User:Mhking (Result: 48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:02, 15 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 12:41, 15 February 2008

POV, OR edits by Secret2, reverted by multiple persons. Secret2 insists his view should be included, and calls others reversions vandalism. Mhking (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Some other editors who were removing this nonsense came close to 3RR, but it's so obviously inappropriate that I don't think it's appropriate to block anyone else. --B (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gregs the baker reported by User:zogonthetyne (Result: Reported user already blocked)

Three-revert rule violation on

Content is being removed with a rationale on Talk:Geordie yet the user in question refuses to read the rationale and is repeatedly reverting without considering anything. An Ip is also involved, already been warned by an admin.

1st revert: [31]
2nd revert: [32]
3rd revert: [33]

Diff of 3RR warning: User talk:Gregs the baker, user now blocked for 31 hours. Zogonthetyne (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:88.64.91.102 reported by User:Georgette2 (Result: 12h block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:33, 14 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: [34]

This IP address continually changed the name of the theme music composer. He/She did not provide any sources for these changes. Also, called users who reverted his/her edits idiots. Georgette2 (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for 12 hours, although it appears to be dynamic so other measures may be needed if edit warring continues. CIreland (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please block 84.56.61.154 too. It is obviously the same user that was just blocked. See [35]. Also, this IP consistently attacks users who have reverted its changes [36]. Georgette2 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article semi-protected by Crum375 (talk · contribs). CIreland (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting the article semi-protected! This ends the edit-warring on Futurama that may have continued for a long period of time. Georgette2 (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.188.184.84 reported by User:Barek (Result: 3 day block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 23:34, 15 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 00:20, 16 February 2008

Ongoing revert war by anon regarding inclusion of a fan-site of which he is president. Aside from the WP:COI issue, it's inclusion is debated (confusingly) on the article's talk page - with no aparent concensus. Anon later made, then retracted legal threats. Note, it appears that one other user, while battling the anon, has also violated 3RR on that page. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked him for 3 days due to his repeat offender nature. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vera from upstairs reported by User:Southern Texas (Result: No action taken; see below )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [37]

1st revert: [38]
2nd revert: [39]
3rd revert: [40]
4th revert: [41]

Diff of 3RR warning: [42] (removed 1 minute later)

User keeps removing images violating 3RR on the article. S TX 04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So a user can violate 3RR for no good reason other than to disrupt and they aren't blocked? --S TX 05:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vera from upstairs just violated the 1RR sanction --S TX 19:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Southern Texas reported by User:Vera from upstairs (Result:1RR enforced )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: [43]

1st revert: [44]
2nd revert: [45]
3rd revert: [46]
4th revert: [47]

Diff of 3RR warning: [48]

User keeps adding random pictures to article. Vera from upstairs (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a 3RR violation. The images are not "random" but have a purpose in the article.--S TX 04:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since blocking you both would be counterproductive, as you wouldn't be able to discuss changes, I've decided instead to give you guys one more chance. You're now on the 1 revert rule; if you revert one another again, without having the other's consent to change the page, you'll be handed a twenty-four hour block. I'm hoping this way you guys can discuss the issue at hand without edit warring yourselves to oblivion.

Again; discuss it amongst yourselves. Try to find a compromise. Do not, under any circumstances, start reverting the article or you will be blocked. If you can't settle the dispute yourselves, ask for a third opinion or seek dispute resolution. Thank you. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user refuses to discuss.--S TX 05:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If she keeps reverting then she will be blocked. Please do your best to compromise. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Both users have been blocked for violating 1RR. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 20:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zipgun reported by User:Tony Sidaway (Result: 15 day block (aggravated 3rr))

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:29, 16 February 2008

1st revert: 18:05
2nd revert: 18:09
3rd revert: 18:24
4th revert: 18:32

Diff of 3RR warning: 17:47

User repeatedly inserting content. There have been many more reverts in the past day or so but this is the most recent set of four. Tony Sidaway 18:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cumulus Clouds reported by User:BQZip01 (Result:warning for both)

Three-revert rule violation on

Request reversion to this version: [49]

1st revert: [50]
2nd revert: [51]
3rd revert: [52]
4th revert: [53]
5th revert: [54]

Diff of 3RR warning: This is an established user who has stated he knows about WP:3RR: [55]

Cumulus Clouds apparently doesn't want anything in this article that anyone could deem offensive. Numerous references for such an inclusion have been provided, but rejected by this editor. I am willing to come to some sort of compromise, but Wikipedia is not censored.

"...the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique...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."

"It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand."

As such, this is a violation of WP:3RR, et al. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR applies to more than 3 reverts made in a 24 hour period. I only count two. Sorry. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Please read WP:3RR and the quote above from it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Well, I'll leave it up for these the community to decide then. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BQZip is correct that Cumulus Clouds is edit warring; however, he/she is equally guilty of edit warring. I'm unwilling to block only one of you, so I'm watchlisting the article and will block either of you if you revert again. Stop reverting and talk this out. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE watchlist the page! I have tried various versions with requested materials only to have my changes reverted repeatedly. I have responded to every request on the talk page with no response. What am I supposed to do? He reverts repeatedly, I request assistance, and you say to leave the page alone until we come to an agreement? No agreement is possible when another party won't change anything. This doesn't solve anything. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring IP Special:Contributions/62.47.23.131, Special:Contributions/62.47.2.150, Special:Contributions/62.47.25.79, Special:Contributions/62.47.23.131, Special:Contributions/62.47.13.60 (current), etc. (Telekom Austria) reported by User:Jayen466 (Result:protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:48

[80]
[81]

Multiple reverts to POV-driven new wordings. Some are badly sourced, or do not accurately reflect the sources quoted. RfCs placed on Talk:Osho page. Jayen466 20:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a full-out edit war, with multiple IPs (though likely the same person) on one side and multiple editors on the other, I'm fully protecting the article. Please discuss this matter on the talk page and come to a consensus. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saythetruth reported by User:Ben Tillman (Result:12 block)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 05:56, 17 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 05:55, 17 February 2008

Despite numerous requests, both in the edit summary and users talk page, to try and reach consensus on the talk page and reversions by at least 3 editors, this user continues to insert new (and dubious) information into the article. I'm not sure if I got the diffs in the right order, but it's clear what is happening in the article history. Thanks, Ben (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These diffs show your own edits, not SaytheTruth's. Please fix this report (note that your report must show at least four reverts, unless there is a reason you think action is needed despite no technical 3RR vio) or submit a new one. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm fixing the links up. In the mean time can you please look at the article history? Cheers, Ben (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links should be good now, and I've added a fourth. Thanks, Ben (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saythetruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 12 hours for edit warring. CIreland (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Tillman, please be careful not to edit war yourself, even if you don't techincally violate 3RR. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... but do I revert back to the original now? Also, I'm not sure how I was edit warring. I'm not arguing that I was or was not, but I thought the idea was the stop at 3 and head over here, so am I confused? Ben (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you start up a discussion on the talk page; if your preferred version has consensus, someone else will make the edit. CIreland (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So just to clarify, despite other editors making the same reverts, I can't just revert back to the original now? I have to wait until someone else sees the talk page? That seems a bit unnecessary .. especially for a page that doesn't get a lot of traffic. Ben (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: Saythetruth (talk · contribs) being blocked does not imply that the content of his edits was incorrect, only that his methods were inappropriate. It should be established by discussion whether or not the content was incorrect. CIreland (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hempbilly reported by User:Jasont82 (Result: 24 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Scott_Ritter. Hempbilly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version reverted to: [82]

1st revert: [83]
2nd revert: [84]
3rd revert: [85]
4th revert: [86]
5th revert: [87]
6th revert: [88]

3RR Notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHempbilly&diff=191931176&oldid=191929875

Basically a good ol' edit war. -- JT ^Holla! 21:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours --B (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Although the warning above was given after the latest reverts, the user had being warned previously so was aware of policy [89] TigerShark (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies to new users anyway - this account has been around since May 2007 (not new) and from a quick glance at his contributions, it's probably not his first/only account anyway. --B (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be highly inappropriate to block a user for 3RR if it where not clear that they were aware of the policy on edit-warring. You would be on shakey ground in jumping to the conclucion that a user knew this policy simply because they had been around for a period of time. TigerShark (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brfc97 reported by User:Bill (Result: 48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 17:10, 16 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 21:21, 16 February 2008

This is the 2nd reporting of this user in a few days. I've attempted to open discussions on the article talk page and on the Brfc97's talk page with no success. Brfc97 repeatedly removes a citation that is sourcing a claim made in the article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has been given a 48 hour block by Gwernol for edit warring. TigerShark (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hataf and User:Hoya4life reported by User:SMC (Result: Page Protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 0015

1st revert: 00:10
2nd revert: 00:10

I then warned both users about this time.

3rd revert: 00:15

An anon then interrupted and appears to have now entered the edit war.

Diff of 3RR warning: 00:11

This appears to be an edit war which has been going on for quite some time. Granted, I have not given the user all four warnings, but if you check the history and the reasons behind the edits you will see why I have reported this "early". Several editors are now entering the fray. It appears that an anon has reason to believe the information Hataf keeps re-adding is prohibited due to a court order. Apologies if I have made mistakes - this is my first 3RR report - but it's apparent things are getting out of hand. SMC (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR doesn’t apply until after the 3rd revert. From the article history, it appears that more reverts were done, so you should add more to this report. —Travis ^talk 00:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The page has been protected, though. I'll keep it in mind for any future 3RR reports I need to do. Thanks! SMC (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Same As It Ever Was reported by User:Tasc0 (Result:both 24h, page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

I tried to approach this user on his talk page, but I just can't end this issue. The user removes content claiming it shouldn't be there because the article it's about an album, and I certainly don't agree with that. The user is awared of the 3RR rule, he reported me a few days ago but the result was that I did not break the rule. My rollback rights were revoked because I was reverting edits that were not clear vandalism, and I wasn't awared that I only could rollback vandalism. Now I have the rollback edits back and I have used the edit summary when reverting non-vandalism. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 01:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected due to edit warring, User:Tasc0 & User:Same As It Ever Was blocked 24 hours for persistent edit warring. Ronnotel (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pgsylv reported by User:Soulscanner (Result:48 hours)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 01:27, 17 February 2008
1st revert: 21:36, 16 February 2008
2nd revert: 22:26, 16 February 2008
3rd revert: 00:32, 17 February 2008
4th revert: 01:11, 17 February 2008
5th revert: 02:24, 17 February 2008
Diff of 3RR warning 1: 22:34, 16 February 2008
Diff of 3RR warning 2: 22:47, 16 February 2008
Diff of 3RR notification: 04:03, 17 February 2008

A short explanation of the incident. Straightforward 3RR violation. User has been warned on his user page, in history of page, and on discussion page.

This continues an edit war that has been carried out by anonymous IP 70.83.226.185 over last several days. :

1 revert02:44, 13 February 2008
2 revert23:42, 14 February 2008
3 revert20:01, 15 February 2008
4 revert02:05, 16 February 2008
5 revert15:28, 16 February 2008
6 revert17:45, 16 February 2008
page semi protected 18:33, 16 February 2008

User:Pgsylv started edit warring after semi-protection was put on to prevent anonymous vandals. It's possible that User:Pgsylv was using anonymous IP to edit war. Should I report this as potential sock puppet or IP infraction? soulscanner (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pgsylv blocked for 48 hours, seems to be a single purpose account. Please see policy at WP:SSP for information on when to file a sock puppetry report. Ronnotel (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:GuffasBorgz7 reported by User:Truco9311 (Result:Warning and page protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 23:02, February 16, 2008.

Diff of 3RR warning: 22:35, February 16, 2008

User believes that wikilinking the same article in the same sections is not redundant. Me, and User:Gavyn Sykes have told him that it is and I have warned him about breaking the 3RR rule. I also told him to read WP:MOS#Links, but ignored it. TrU Co ⁹31¹ 04:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over MoS issues is silly. Both sides should please take a deep breath and focus on the good things in their lives instead of this nonsense. I'm protecting the page briefly to encourage this result. Ronnotel (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cebactokpatop reported by User:Seminarist (Result: Article protected)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 18:18, 15 February 2008

1st revert: [90]
2nd revert: [91]
3rd revert: [92]
4th revert: [93]
5th revert: [94]
6th revert: [95]
7th revert: [96]
8th revert: [97]

Diff of 3RR warning: 20:56, 15 February 2008

User:Cebactokpatop repeatedly insisting on inclusion of contentious material in biographical article of John Zizioulas, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Permagon. Text and references claim 'traditional Orthodox' view is that Zizioulas is 'heterodox'. This violates WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:PROVEIT. For more information, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Cebactokpatop_and_John_Zizioulas_article. Seminarist (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there have been more than 3 reverts by either individual in a 24 hour period and frankly, I don't consider it relevant: Both Cebactokpatop (talk · contribs) and Seminarist (talk · contribs) are edit warring. However, It is encouraging that a discussion is simultaneously taking place on the talk page. Thus, because a 3RR violation is not clear and in order to discourage further edits from either editor until a resolution can be found on the talk page, I am protecting the article for 10 days. CIreland (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kborer at socialized medicine: 3RR violated several times: (Result: User warned)

User:Kborer has essentially reverted to a specific version (see also talk page), removing a key distinction (that socialized medicine is a term as opposed to a single system) four times in less than 24 hours, and and six or seven times in approximately 48 hours (more in the previous days):

one two three four five six seven

Note that while there have been minor changes, the primary fixation seems to be to remove a (documented and referenced) issue with respect to the use of the term. Note that this is also a repeated pattern on this particular page, reverting three times or more within a short period of time. There is a clear pattern of violation of the spirit of wp:3rr. I am not listing the numerous changes in exactly the same spirit in the previous few days, so there are actually more than these seven.

The use of POV sources is also more than tendentious: witness the lead sentence being changed to "Socialized medicine is any health care system that embodies the fundamental principle of socialism."--Gregalton (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This report is a little old and the user never received a warning. I will warn the user on his talk page for now and watchlist the page. CIreland (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Olahus reported by User:Bogdangiusca (Result: No vio)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 11:00, 16 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: user is not a newbie, he's aware of the policy, has been warned before.

Revert-war on whether Moldovans should include the people of the Romanian part of Romania or not. POV-pushing to prove a point. bogdan (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR has not been violated as the first diff does not show a revert. There was a brief edit war but it was short-lived. I would encourage both editors to continue the discussion ongoing on the talk page. If reversion rather than discussion continues at a later stage, come back to this noticeboard or request page protection at WP:RFPP. CIreland (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pexise reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 18:13, 12 February 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: 15:58, 17 February 2008

First revert is a partial one, the rest are full reverts.Ultramarine (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Derek.cashman reported by User:bkonrad (Result:warning both)

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 03:47, February 16, 2008

1st revert: 05:06, February 16, 2008
2nd revert: 23:28, February 16, 2008
3rd revert: 06:54, February 17, 2008 (note: there was an intervening edit in which another user proposed another version--Derek.cashman reverted to his preferred version)
4th revert: 16:42, February 17, 2008

Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME (Derek.cashman is not a new user)

A short explanation of the incident. Derek.cashman finds general references to be unacceptable and has attempted to force this dictate into the WP:City Guidelines, despite there being no such explicit deprecation on WP:CITE. He has demonstrated no support for this change and others have expressed disagreement. In addition, he has accused me of being a sock puppet [98] (on what basis I have no idea). While I object to Derek.cashman edits, I have no problem with the suggestion proposed by Maclean25 here and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Guideline. older ≠ wiser 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides are edit warring. Bkonrad has not technically violated 3RR, but has reverted four times in the past two days. Not willing to block only one, but have watchlisted the article and will block either one if he continues the edit war. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Desione reported by User:Relata refero (Result: )

Three-revert rule violation on

Previous version reverted to: 13:24 Feb 17

1st revert: 23:00 Feb 17
2nd revert: 23:12 Feb 17
3rd revert: 00:19 Feb 18
4th revert: 00:30 Feb 18

Diff of 3RR warning: 00:23 Feb 18
Additional warning after he broke 3RR, requesting he revert himself [99].

User has been around for some time. Mainly tendentious editing; has been arguing on talkpage of previously stable article, but without providing any sources, or indeed any form of reasoned argument as far as I can see. I don't like coming here, because its such an effort and because I feel like a snitch, but I think perhaps this one needs to cool off and get some time to read policy, and understand that edit-warring is bad. Judging by his response to my two requests to revert himself, he doesn't care right now.

Previously reverted several other editors, and I think its about 5-6 reverts in the past 24 hours, but counting this gives me a headache.

Relata refero (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example

<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) ==

*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

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

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

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

@@ Line 870: / Line 870: @@
 First revert is a partial one, the rest are full reverts.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] ([[User talk:Ultramarine|talk]]) 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
-== [[User:Derek.cashman]] reported by [[User:bkonrad]] (Result: ) ==
+== [[User:Derek.cashman]] reported by [[User:bkonrad]] (Result:warning both) ==
 *[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
@@ Line 892: / Line 892: @@
 Derek.cashman finds general references to be unacceptable and has attempted to force this dictate into the WP:City Guidelines, despite there being no such explicit deprecation on [[WP:CITE]]. He has demonstrated no support for this change and others have expressed disagreement. In addition, he has accused me of being a sock puppet [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline&diff=prev&oldid=192091881] (on what basis I have no idea). While I object to Derek.cashman edits, I have no problem with the suggestion proposed by [[User:Maclean25|Maclean25]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline&diff=191978926&oldid=191973752 here] and
 [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Guideline]]. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
+:Both sides are edit warring. Bkonrad has not technically violated 3RR, but has reverted four times in the past two days. Not willing to block only one, but have watchlisted the article and will block either one if he continues the edit war. [[User:Heimstern|Heimstern Läufer]] [[User talk:Heimstern|(talk)]] 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 == [[User:Desione]] reported by [[User:Relata refero]] (Result: ) ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards