Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 571: Line 571:
:This user was simply reverting the deletions made by the above now indef-blocked user. Potential bad faith nomination. - [[User:52 Pickup|<font color="#1E90FF">'''52 Pickup'''</font >]] [[User_talk:52 Pickup|<font color="purple">(deal)</font>]] 15:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
:This user was simply reverting the deletions made by the above now indef-blocked user. Potential bad faith nomination. - [[User:52 Pickup|<font color="#1E90FF">'''52 Pickup'''</font >]] [[User_talk:52 Pickup|<font color="purple">(deal)</font>]] 15:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


== [[User:Dbachmann]] reported by [[User:Camptown]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:Dbachmann]] reported by [[User:Camptown]] (Result:Make love, not war) ==


*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Template:Kosovo-stub}} and {{Article|Template:Kosovo-stub}}. {{3RRV|Dbachmann}}: Time reported: 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Template:Kosovo-stub}} and {{Article|Template:Kosovo-stub}}. {{3RRV|Dbachmann}}: Time reported: 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Line 614: Line 614:
::The isn't the first time that Dab has done this. You should see how many times he has gotten away with 3RR on [[Assyrian people]]. This isn't the first time dab ingoring voting results. Despite twice being voted on down on moving the [[Assyrian people]] page, he continues with the idea of moving without taking into concent the rest of Wiki's community. Actually, if you look at the history, you will see mostly him editing the page, because other have quite since he reverts anything he doesn't agree with and his version of the page is always final .He sometimes disrespects others, including recently ''Chaldean, do you speak English? At all?'' [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assyrian_people&diff=197004747&oldid=197004628]] - is that how a mod is to communicate with others? You know, its stuff like this that gets other disgouraged from continuing to work on wiki. I am still suprised his authority has not been challanged. He continues to make drastic edits and moves that is far from the explantion of reality on multiple topics. [[User:Chaldean|Chaldean]] ([[User talk:Chaldean|talk]]) 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
::The isn't the first time that Dab has done this. You should see how many times he has gotten away with 3RR on [[Assyrian people]]. This isn't the first time dab ingoring voting results. Despite twice being voted on down on moving the [[Assyrian people]] page, he continues with the idea of moving without taking into concent the rest of Wiki's community. Actually, if you look at the history, you will see mostly him editing the page, because other have quite since he reverts anything he doesn't agree with and his version of the page is always final .He sometimes disrespects others, including recently ''Chaldean, do you speak English? At all?'' [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assyrian_people&diff=197004747&oldid=197004628]] - is that how a mod is to communicate with others? You know, its stuff like this that gets other disgouraged from continuing to work on wiki. I am still suprised his authority has not been challanged. He continues to make drastic edits and moves that is far from the explantion of reality on multiple topics. [[User:Chaldean|Chaldean]] ([[User talk:Chaldean|talk]]) 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Deplorable, to say the least.... Dab seems to shop for a quite a few articles he can "safely" revert three times within the stipulated 24 hours. But, doesn't the 3RR-rule actually restrict an editor from that kind of borderline behavior? --[[User:Camptown|Camptown]] ([[User talk:Camptown|talk]]) 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Deplorable, to say the least.... Dab seems to shop for a quite a few articles he can "safely" revert three times within the stipulated 24 hours. But, doesn't the 3RR-rule actually restrict an editor from that kind of borderline behavior? --[[User:Camptown|Camptown]] ([[User talk:Camptown|talk]]) 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
::::He didn't technically violate 3RR in any cases; however, 3RR should not be seen as an endorsement to revert someone as much as policy allows. From now on, can you two not revert each other? If one of you makes a change the other doesn't like, please bring it up on each others' talk pages and come to an agreement. In fact, I think I'll step you guys down to 2RR. Instead of the customary 3 edits, you can only make two before it is considered warring.
::::{{AN3|c|2 revert rule instituted.}} [[User:Master of Puppets|<font color="#7d7d7d">'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets</font>]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<span style="font-variant:Small-caps;><sub><font color="#7d7d7d">Call me MoP!<font size=4>☺</font></font></sub></span>]] 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


==[[User:Mythdon ]] reported by [[User:Legotech]](Result:No action taken)==
==[[User:Mythdon ]] reported by [[User:Legotech]](Result:No action taken)==

Revision as of 03:23, 11 March 2008

Template:Moveprotected

    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.

    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

    Violations

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


    User:Realist2 reported by Kookoo Star (Result: 72 hours)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: see below

    Editor "Realist2" has reverted at least 4 edits in less than 24 hours. He has already received a 24 hour ban for breaking the 3RR only 2 days ago, and the first thing he did once the ban was over was begin edit warring again on both the Michael Jackson and Thriller pages again. The user is something of an obsessive fan and has a history of edit warring (there is a warning for edit warring on his TALK page from only last week) and since he has been blocked as recently as two days ago, perhaps sterner measures are required. Kookoo Star (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can actually see all these edits were variations and we (as you can see on the Thriller talk page) were trying to come to a compromise in the issue in which the specific wording of the section was very key to the problem. Non, or those edits were exactly the same , rather alterations and some of the edits arent even related to each other. I reverted the inclusion of the 29 x platinum thing which had NOTHING to do with any of the other edits. I wasnt even given a warning that i was approaching an alleged 3rr and he never even informed me that i was reported. Many of my edits were reverts back to a neutral edit made by an admin.

    • In the second allegged revert all i did was remove the word "reported" as i wanted to maintain a npov. Their ALL reported, but if you specify that on one and not the other it implies 1 is more valid than the other.
    • The third alleged revert was the removal of the eagles statement. It has NOTHING to do with the previous issue and was UNSOURCED.
    • In the fourth alledged revert I removed the words "Very dramatic" , its removal of pov wording, whats very dramatic to 1 person is not so dramatic to another.
    • Many other editor not just me reverted his pov assertions as you can see from the edit history on the Michael Jackson page.
    • Additionally BEFORE i was aware of this report (so i did it of my own accord) at approx 9.30pm i reinserted the word "vary" seen Here therefore my fourth alleged revert was not that i removed the phrase "vary dramatically" rather that when looking at it as a whole i only removed the pov slanted word "dramatically". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realist2 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is rubbish, i never broke 3rr, i was never informed of the alledged approaching event and i was never told of the report. He has alleged that i have a pro Michael Jackson stance so my edits are invalid, im the one removing the pov, he has the anti jackson bias and dislikes Jackson fans.

    Also it looks like i WAS right about the tag teaming 2 days ago, they have both reported me in 2 days. Yes i know i did wrong the first time and i went about it the wrong way, but this today is a joke.

    I have learnt from my block a few days ago and have strived to maintain neutrality on the issue, reverting back to edits made and advised by admins. Realist2 (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No warning here was necessary because you have once again shown yourself to be edit warring less than 2 days after your recent 24 hour ban for 3RR was over. You know full well what you are doing and you know it is wrong. Trying to shift the blame away from yourself by implying that I hate Jackson and his fans and accusing me of tag-teaming is not going to work. You have reverted at least four of my own edits on the Michael Jackson page on 5 March - even ones which had relevant citations - whether by using "undo" or by simply copying and pasting to restore to previous versions written by yourself. You have shown yourself to be far too biased to contribute to Wikipedia articles and your obsessive (and possessive) stance over the Jackson articles proves this. Considering your behaviour over the past couple of days alone, it is clear that you are also a liar and a troublemaker. You have also misquoted or misrepresented much of the evidence you have written in your defence above. Kookoo Star (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not include the previous version reverted to, therefore it is impossible to determine that the first diff you gave is actually a revert. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As you never even bothered to inform be of my report its blatantly clear you knew that if i had the chance to defend myself i would probable win. Also hello 1 of those alleged reverts was the removal of something unrelated and UNSOURCED. you must source info.

    I made over 150 edits in a 24 hour period yesterday. I cant remember what edits i made where. You must warn ppl if they are close to an ALLEGED 3rr or how are they ment to know. especially when you start counting untrlated issues that are unsourced suck as the 29 x platinum thing. My issue on that if whenever i see something unsourced i delete it in a heatbeat. Looking at your previous edits, its unlike you not to source anything. I have a suspicion you set that their deliberately knowing I would delete it so you could include it on your vague tally of reverts. Realist2 (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally this was reported 24 hours ago, all editing on the issue has since ended so the usage of a block is of less purpose now. Is there not a time frame when an alligation becomes stale? Realist2 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The previous version for the first revert has now been added. As you can see, it is a clear revert to the version before my own. The other three reverts listed are for items in the same article but not necessarily the same sentences. Would you like me to include "previous version" links to all of the reverts as opposed to just the first one? Kookoo Star (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on looking at what's going on even since the user was made aware of this report, it looks like he is still revert warring. A user has attempted to open a channel of communication with Realist2 on the talk page (starting 4 March 2008), but has so far not been answered. I can only assume this pattern of reverting will continue, based on the following edits:
    1. 05:37, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "they are all reported, no need to apply sceptism to it")
    2. 05:42, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "its still selling")
    3. 14:38, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "please source")
    4. 16:26, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "removal of pov slanting, just present the facts ppl can decide")
    5. 17:20, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "thats you pov in my pov it isnt a dramatic difference")
    6. 21:35, 5 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Thriller */")
    7. 22:20, 6 March 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Return to public eye and 25th anniversary of Thriller */")
    Moreover, this is coming directly off of another 3RR block that happened just days ago.
    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours --slakr\ talk / 11:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Taiketsu reported by User:MelicansMatkin (Result: Various people blocked)

    • Previous version reverted to: 03:18


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 03:39

    This edit war is stemming over a disagreement between two members, User:Urutapu and User:Taiketsu over the translation of several Japanese Pokémon episode titles into the English language. The translation being edit-warred over the most is whether a title should be listed as Lucario! Wave Shot of Anger!! or Lucario! Pulse Bomb of Anger!! While I am certainly no expert in the Japanese language, this edit war is simply absurd and has been ongoing for several days, with most of the activity taking place from 13:58 on March 5. User:Taiketsu is using another Wiki as a source for his translation(Bulbapedia), and has stated several times in the edit summaries to do a general search on the internet; something which I feel is incorrect considering that online translations often differ from website to website. I should also note that a difference of opinion between User:Urutapu and User:Taiketsu on episode title translations has occurred many times in the past, and that Taiketsu has been previously blocked four times for edit warring. I would also report User:Urutapu for this ongoing and unnecessary edit war, but unfortunately the user who initially gave a 3RR warning to User:Taiketsu neglected to do the same for User:Urutapu. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IT IS THE CORRECT TRANSLATION. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Pokemon+Pulse+Bomb&btnG=Search
    • Dragon PULSE-----------りゅうのはどう
    • Dark PULSE-------------あくのはどう
    • Water PULSE------------みずのはどう
    • PULSE Bomb-------------はどうだん
    • Bomb - 爆弾 (ばくだん) ---->

    Pulse 波動｛はどう｝弾 (だん) 波動+弾=波動弾(はどうだん) http://eow.alc.co.jp/Pulse%20/UTF-8/

    1. 脈拍｛みゃくはく｝、脈｛みゃく｝、脈動｛みゃくどう｝、鼓動｛こどう｝、振動｛しんどう｝、波動｛はどう｝

    (Taiketsu (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    • What a mess. Right or wrong, revert warring is not the way we do things.
      1. Taiketsu has made nearly a dozen reverts in the last day or two and has four previous 3RR blocks. 4 days this time.
      2. Urutapu has made four reverts in the last 24 hours (and several more before that). He has two previous 3RR blocks so does not need to be re-warned about it. 24 hours for him.
      3. MelicansMatkin has also made four reverts (from 16:48 UTC yesterday to 02:10 UTC today). As he's warning and reporting other people, he is clearly aware of 3RR, but has no previous blocks. 8 hours.

    Anyone else? Stifle (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WebHamster reported by User:bsharvy (Result: 12 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]
    • 5th revert: [6]

    More: [7] [8]

    In addition to the reverts mentioned, he has deleted material without using the undo function, mostly in the warning tags, repeatedly. See his other edits on March 6.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME None. His homepage (which contains a nude image...) says he's been using Wikipedia for 5 years. He knows the rules.

    This user is refusing to allow the addition of warning templates for lack of neautrality and unencyclopedic content, and he is refusing to allow the removal of POV-pushing content. Bsharvy (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saul Tillich reported by User:Anastrophe. (Result: 48 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [9]


    User believes he owns the article, and knows the truth about article subject. replaces majority of article with his own personal version, daily. contravenes consensus. (ginormous) amounts of discussion, unwilling to compromise. many more diffs going back weeks.(my dates above might be fubar, apologies.) Anastrophe (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts in one 24-hour period. Those are too spread out to constitute a violation. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    i would argue that they still constitute a pattern of clearly disruptive edits that do violate 3RR in spirit - per the following from the 3RR page: "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.". this is a relentless pattern of making wholesale changes to the article every day - sometimes multiple times per day. the activities are quite disruptive. if not 3RR, then can you advise what other path might be taken? Anastrophe (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    hello? i'd be interested in a reply to this. i think the basis of my complaint is valid - the formal description of 3RR makes it clear that it is not strictly limited to '3 reverts within 24 hours'. we've got a handful of editors who are being worn down by one editor who finds it enjoyable to do a wholesale reversion of the article to a version that has not been agreed to by *any* other editors, and which is a pretty reckless abuse of NPOV and OR. it's frustrating, to say the least. Anastrophe (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 48 hours. Disruptive edit warring, despite warnings from other users. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you, i appreciate it. Anastrophe (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:136.8.152.13‎ reported by User:Chrisieboy (Result: warned )

    Chrisieboy (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Going over limit was inadvertant, for which I appologise - I'd forgotten there were two yesterday. It is not my intention to start an edit war.
    User Chrisieboy has been engaged in disruptive reverting, rolling back perfectly valid changes and re-introducing errors without any explaination (other than 'I didn't like it') despite requests to provide reasons.
    User Chrisieboy has also deleted my comments on a third user's talk page (Ian3055), and appears to be intent on a course of disruptive behavior.
    Finally, note that the warning was given after the fourth reversion listed above. I did stop on being warned. Report was given at that time because I pointed out to user Chrisieboy that they were also on three reverts - warning has been deleted from Chrisieboy's talk page by user Christieboy.
    136.8.152.13 (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned. Both editors should leave the page to simmer, though, for the time being, as both are now aware of the 3RR and should take their disputes to the article's talk page. I thank you two in advance for settling this in a civil and thoughtful way. Cheers :) --slakr\ talk / 13:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spitzer19 reported by User:Boodlesthecat (Result:24 hours each )


    User:Spitzer19 is a suspected sock puppeteer who has been edit warring on this article and on the Neo-Nazi article, where he has received multiple warnings. His edit warring largely consists of removing sourced information that he replaces with his own unsourced POV. Boodlesthecat (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Boodles has also been edit-warring here, and his contributions, while slightly less POV that Spitzers, also include BLP violations which he's reinserted before having the BLP violation explained in small words. Argyriou (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked Argyriou (who has engaged in belligerent edit warring on the Neo-Nazi article--including claiming that the New York Times wasn't a Reliable Source(!) to supply evidence of his claim about my "BLP violations." Until such time, such claim should be considered a partisan unsupported claim in this manner designed to minimize the violations of the above editor. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Spitzer19 and User:Boodlesthecat blocked for 24 hours each. - auburnpilot talk 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dablyputs reported by User:SWik78 (Result: Page protected )

    • Previous version reverted to: [10]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [17]

    This is an all-out edit/revert war between Dablyputs (talk · contribs) and Working terriers (talk · contribs). In addition to reverts listed above, there are at least half a dozen more within the last 24 hours as can be seen here. SWik78 (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kilz reported by User:WalterGR (Result: 24h blocks x2)


    Summary of incident:

    Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contribs) 18:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not violate the 3 revert rule. Looking at the times of the so called reverts they are all wrong. On the 7th, the page was split and so edits were on a new page. The 1st and 2nd edits are consecutive. According to the 3 revert rule consecutive edits are considered 1. They are not a revert, but editing and removing part. This is an initial edit for the day. The 3rd was a revert, to cancel out a revert by HaL. The same with the 4th. That totals 2 reverts with no warning on that page. The warning posted was for another day and another page. That warning was for 2 edits and 2 reverts. Since the page was split, the edits happened on 2 different pages. The reverts were to remove poorly sourced sections. Kilz (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, then:
    WalterGR (talk | contributions) 08:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first is an edit, not a revert. The page was recently created, mine was the second edit after creation of the page, and the removal was a section while editing, not reverting. The removal of the sections was for non verifiability, per comments. The last was to undo the actions of a anonymous sockpuppet. There was no warning about 3 reverts on that page and revert after. Kilz (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no mention of requiring a warning on 3RR. Additionally, I had warned you about a different article the previous day.
    Why have all cases before and after this one been dealt with?
    WalterGR (talk | contributions) 17:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Zipbip reported by User:Arcayne (Result: No block)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [23]

    An apparent WP:SPA to edit Googoosh, pushing the foreign language spelling before the English-language spelling. Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    i am not pushing the farsi spelling before the english spelling in the article, the info-box is mainly decorative. also, you reverted me 5 times, removing her height and other important info from the info-box. zipbip —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipbip (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. My edits were not reverts of your posts (they were initial copyediting, and my specific reverts of your material did not exceed the rules), nor were they edit-warring, which your edits specifically constituted.
    As well, I think you - being new and a single-purpose account - are unfamiliar with the terminology we use in Wikipedia. We don't use decorative, pretty little features. This is the English-language wikipedia. English spellings go first (as you were advised). As well, we don't include lists of past (or future) concert dates, as per WP:NOT. You were advised to use the Discussion page, and you flatly refused to discuss there, stipulating that you preferred to use the edit summary.
    I understand that you are new, but newness doesn't excuse making the same mistakes on purpose and refusing to discuss them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a silly edit war. Please try and find common ground. The alternative would be to protect the page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would submit that this isn't an edit-war so much as it is the basic failure of a user to follow (or perhaps understand) the extent of our rules here; therefore, their common ground is not to be found within Wikipedia territory. While the page has been (to my reckoning unnecessarily) protected, the SPA Zipbip still violated 3RR, as noted in the diffs presented above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 21:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Zipbip did not make another revert after the 3RR warning, so he wouldn't be blocked anyway. It seems this user is just uninformed of our policies, and page protection will hopefully get him to discuss on the talk page, rather than through edit summaries. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, even though I think we are splitting hairs - it was less than a minute. I hope he does learn, but I think we will be back here again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Patmar15 reported by User:Jéské Couriano (Result:24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [24]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [29]

    Edit-warring at the template. When warned for 3RR, he replied with this. -Jéské (v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife) 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours by Kafziel. Daniel Case (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yosemitesam25 reported by User:Arjuna808 (Result: 24h & 48h blocks )

    • Previous version reverted to: [30]


    Yosemitesam25 has continued to revert consensus material and reinstate his own material with disregard to repeated warnings that his edits violate WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and possibly WP:COI. Note that the edit described above as 06:36, 8 March 2008 was the beginning of a series of six edits that either reverted previous material or reinstated previous POV material that was legitimately reverted by a consensus of other editors. Finally, I apologize in advance if I have filled out this report incorrectly -- coding is not my forte but I think I have it correct. Thank you for your attention. Arjuna (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe one of those was a consecutive edit (simultaneous) in which I was adding citations in response to Eekadog.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - I have blocked Yosemitesam25 and Arjuna808 for 24 and 48 hours respectively and warned a third user, Eekadog. It is recommended that all users please use discussion to calmly propose changes to the said article. If it happens again I would recommend that article bans be implemented. ScarianCall me Pat 15:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ChipotLoser reported by User:YOUR_NAME (Result: No 3RR, but blocked for spam)

    If you look at the history of this Chipotle Mexican Grill article the "fan site" links have been added and removed several times. This user has consistently added this site (their own) back several times in spite of a variety of other users removing it. The COIBot Spam LinkReport for this domain confirms the idea that this is being added in a manner inconsistent with wikipedia guidelines. 70.88.211.141 (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • User has 1) not been warned 2) only edited the page three times. However, I will block user for spam links. Sasquatch t|c 23:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:99.236.63.51 reported by User:momusufan (Result: 24-hour edit-warring block )


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [31]

    IP has violated 3RR on this article and other articles as well, appears to not want to discuss his edits on the talk page of the article. Momusufan (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:WilliamHanrahan reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 72 hours)

    Editor has recently been blocked for edit warring, yet continues. One Night In Hackney303 03:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours --slakr\ talk / 11:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Otto4711 reported by User:HiDrNick (Result: already blocked)

    Edit waring after warning; persists in restoring non-free images in a manner prohibited by WP:NONFREE. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 04:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lazyguythewerewolf reported by User:Strongsauce (Result: 48 hrs)


    Edit warring with other users. Ignoring WP:CRYSTAL, or WP:OR Strongsauce (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the user has made a fifth revert just now [32], though at 20:21, this is more than 24 hours after the first revert. He has still made 4 reverts in the past 24 hours. Dreaded Walrus t c 20:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, due to previous disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sia34 reported by User:Arcayne (Result: Article protected)


    • The user is an established editor who is well aware of 3RR

    Pretty much reverting out those edits from multiple users he doesn't agree with. Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, this was a 3RR complaint, not a RfP. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Page protection is a common result of 3RR reports. Sia34 did not violate 3RR (consecutive edits do not count as reverts), so the alternative was to protect the page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. Consecutive edits that undo other's specific edits DO constitute reverts. Maybe you missed that? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.188.208.203 reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: 24 hrs)

    IP but probably experienced WP editor due to familiarity with WP as seen in his comments. Best solution would be to semi-protect the article. There has been many sockpuppets editing this article recently, see [38].Ultramarine (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed that one of the reverts was to undo a false positive from bot. Does that count?!Giovanni33 (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a listed exception. Hardly a false positive.Ultramarine (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not vandalism and thus is a false positive. Last time I checked bots were not editors. Undoing a false positive from a bot is not undoing an the work of another editor (which is the definition of a reversion).Giovanni33 (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mass deletion. No exception for Bots. He was warned and continued.Ultramarine (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a false positive - 3rr blocks are not supposed to be punitive. In this case, that revert doesn't violate 3RR as as the spirit of 3rr is to put a stop to edit warring. Correcting a bot error, however, is not an edit war/content dispute. --Veritas (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mospyt reported by User:Cloudz679 (Result: Indef blocked)

    • Previous version reverted to: 11:21


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 11:37

    Repeated addition of disputed material ignoring warnings and attempts at dispute resolution. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to reporter: In future, please report diffs instead of former versions. That makes it a lot easier to follow.

    Examination: This 3RR report is directly related to the one below, also reported by Cloudz679. User:Mospyt is a very new user that has only worked on this article. The only changes made by this user are this series of blankings and changes. These changes are also made by 79.77.181.111 (talk · contribs) shortly before Mospyt starts on the article, so it is incredibly likely that Mospyt and this IP are the same person, and also possible that Mospyt is a WP:SPA but it is possibly too early to say anything about that (AGF).

    The below reported reverts by User:Cometstyles are reversions of the above blankings/changes by Mospyt. Apart from these reversions, Cometstyles appears to have had no other involvment in this article. The restoration by Cometstyles of information deleted by Mospyt is more a reversion of vandalism than anything else.

    Mospyt has just been blocked indefinitely (not by me, though) - 52 Pickup (deal) 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cometstyles reported by User:Cloudz679 (Result: no action)

    • Previous version reverted to: 11:17


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 11:37

    Repeated reverts beyond acceptable practices; edit warring. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See previous 3RR report
    This user was simply reverting the deletions made by the above now indef-blocked user. Potential bad faith nomination. - 52 Pickup (deal) 15:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dbachmann reported by User:Camptown (Result:Make love, not war)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [42]

    and:

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [46]

    This is just two examples of edit wars the user:Dbachmann is involved in. When being notified about this, he instantly deletes the legitimate warning from his own talk page.

    and this is a typical example of user:Dbachmann's communication left on my talk page:

    [50].

    --Camptown (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This report should be removed since Dbachmann has clearly not breached the 3rr in any of these cases. You need to make *more* than three reverts during a 24h period in a single article.--Berig (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Camptown is in need of some coaching. He pushes a nationalist pov with no remorse, and now is trolling my talkpage with his 3rr warnings, besides forum-shopping with bogus 3rr reports. The diff he posts as "typical" of our interaction follows me wasting my breath talking sense to him while he limited himself to post warning templates to my talkpage. I do recommend a short cool-down block for this user. dab (𒁳) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The warnings are indeed legitimate and not "bogus", Dbachmann is repeatedly ignoring invitations to a constructive dialogue about sensitive matters regarding articles related to the Republic of Kosovo, but he resorts to quick revisions (usually without explanation on the related talk pages). Only hours after the much needed protection of Kosovo was lifted, he split the article for - I guess - the third time. It should be pointed out that the original split - suggested and executed by Dbachmann on his own initiative - was turned down in a vote, unfortunately, that vote was also ignored by Dbachmann. --Camptown (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The isn't the first time that Dab has done this. You should see how many times he has gotten away with 3RR on Assyrian people. This isn't the first time dab ingoring voting results. Despite twice being voted on down on moving the Assyrian people page, he continues with the idea of moving without taking into concent the rest of Wiki's community. Actually, if you look at the history, you will see mostly him editing the page, because other have quite since he reverts anything he doesn't agree with and his version of the page is always final .He sometimes disrespects others, including recently Chaldean, do you speak English? At all? [[51]] - is that how a mod is to communicate with others? You know, its stuff like this that gets other disgouraged from continuing to work on wiki. I am still suprised his authority has not been challanged. He continues to make drastic edits and moves that is far from the explantion of reality on multiple topics. Chaldean (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deplorable, to say the least.... Dab seems to shop for a quite a few articles he can "safely" revert three times within the stipulated 24 hours. But, doesn't the 3RR-rule actually restrict an editor from that kind of borderline behavior? --Camptown (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't technically violate 3RR in any cases; however, 3RR should not be seen as an endorsement to revert someone as much as policy allows. From now on, can you two not revert each other? If one of you makes a change the other doesn't like, please bring it up on each others' talk pages and come to an agreement. In fact, I think I'll step you guys down to 2RR. Instead of the customary 3 edits, you can only make two before it is considered warring.
    Comment – 2 revert rule instituted. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mythdon reported by User:Legotech(Result:No action taken)

    Jungle Fury Power Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 21:56, 10 March 2008 (edit summary: "Created page")
    2. 22:17, 10 March 2008 (edit summary: "Why not? People can build it up later.")
    3. 22:51, 10 March 2008 (edit summary: "Thats no reason in this case")
    4. 23:00, 10 March 2008 (edit summary: "Give the article time to build up")
    • Diff of warning: here

    He appears to be trying to make this article about the specific rangers...however there doesn't appear to be enough material to actually make a new article yet.

    —Legotech·(t)·(c) 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is more good faith, so I'm reluctant to block. He is right that if there is information it should be included; however, for the time being, the article can exist as a redirect. If sufficient information emerges, we can always undo the redirect. Also, you may like to suggest the possibility of working on the article in his userspace (eg. User:Mythdon/Jungle Fury Power Rangers) as a compromise; when he gets enough information there, he can move it to article space. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bless sins reported by User:Yahel Guhan (Result:Page protected)

    Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture/5 (edit | [[Talk:Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture/5|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bless sins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: unnecessary. Bless sins has been blocked for a 3rr before. Bless sins has reverted 4 times the inclusion of the Mecca image. Yahel Guhan 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not going to hand out blocks yet, as you're both established and you're both edit warring; blocking you both would be counterproductive. Please use this opportunity, while the page is protected, to come to an agreement on the talk page; if you cannot, please do not edit the article. Thank you. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BrownHairedGirl reported by User:Para (Result:No action taken)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: As an administrator, obviously knows the letter of the policy, but 2 minutes difference is not in its spirit.

    BrownHairedGirl is involved in a dispute on WP:EL, where she is failing to get support for her personal opinion. For some reason she targets my edits only, and none of the others. The last time she lost control, she abused admin tools and mass-reverted all my work done after the consensus on WP:GEO in the course of several months without complaints, and her actions were reported to WP:AN/I. She seems to again be starting to do the same [52], and I'm afraid to soon find all my work reverted again by this POV revert warrior. --Para (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Where is the 4th revert? Yahel Guhan 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined I only see three reverts; that's within 3RR, if pushing it. Also, please consider taking this up with the admin in question, and abstaining from editing the articles in question until you've reached a compromise, so that you have some consensus to help with editing. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:09, 11 March 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 -->

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=197399753"