Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Potaaatos (talk | contribs)
137 edits
Line 306: Line 306:
The user has been blocked several times before for violating the 3rr rule. All of the users edits in the past several weeks have been reverted by many people in many articles. And the user is locked in an edit war in those as well. The user shows no understanding for wikipedia rules or policies. The user inserts material without a reliable reference, in this specific case "a movie that he saw". The user has made several personal attacks including calling me "ignorant". The user fully knows about the 3rr rule because he has been blocked several times for breaking it yet he continues to do so again and again [[User:Potaaatos|Potaaatos]] 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The user has been blocked several times before for violating the 3rr rule. All of the users edits in the past several weeks have been reverted by many people in many articles. And the user is locked in an edit war in those as well. The user shows no understanding for wikipedia rules or policies. The user inserts material without a reliable reference, in this specific case "a movie that he saw". The user has made several personal attacks including calling me "ignorant". The user fully knows about the 3rr rule because he has been blocked several times for breaking it yet he continues to do so again and again [[User:Potaaatos|Potaaatos]] 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:I'm too involved to rule on this one but I will point out that there is more than 24 hours before the first and last revert. And really, both users are at fault here. There's about 2 days between Potaaatos' 1st and 4th revert but he's also been edit warring on that article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Stalingrad&diff=108842070&oldid=108783871], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Stalingrad&diff=109100499&oldid=108842070], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Stalingrad&diff=109182762&oldid=109100499], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Stalingrad&diff=109298531&oldid=109182762]. Honestly, I think both should be blocked. Kurt is labeling legit edits as vandalism and Potaaatos keeps citing policy and not always correctly. it's a typical edit war. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|Woohoo!]]</sup> 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:I'm too involved to rule on this one but I will point out that there is more than 24 hours before the first and last revert. And really, both users are at fault here. There's about 2 days between Potaaatos' 1st and 4th revert but he's also been edit warring on that article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Stalingrad&diff=108842070&oldid=108783871], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Stalingrad&diff=109100499&oldid=108842070], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Stalingrad&diff=109182762&oldid=109100499], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Stalingrad&diff=109298531&oldid=109182762]. Honestly, I think both should be blocked. Kurt is labeling legit edits as vandalism and Potaaatos keeps citing policy and not always correctly. it's a typical edit war. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|Woohoo!]]</sup> 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


:::If I may point out that I have never violated the 3rr rule and thus should not be blocked at all, and I have never been warned for anything ever. The main difference here is that he has several times violated the 3rr rule where as I have not. The policy which I have linked shows that all information that is added without a source may be removed. The User Kurt has been blocked several times, he is right now involved in several edit wars, and has been involved several times on this specific page and gotten reverted every single time in the past, like most of his edits do. And if I also may point out that Kurts edits on admin Woohookitty page and admin Woohookitty on Kurts page seem to show that they are "chumy" with each other so it is perfectly understandable that Woohookitty is now trying to help his friend.[[User:Potaaatos|Potaaatos]] 00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


===[[User:81.227.105.32]] reported by [[User:Montco]] (Result:1 week)===
===[[User:81.227.105.32]] reported by [[User:Montco]] (Result:1 week)===

Revision as of 00:10, 20 February 2007

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.

    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.

    User:81.155.34.127 reported by User:Mais oui! (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on John D. Mackay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 81.155.34.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments: You have violated WP:3RR as well. Have you filed for checkuser to confirm that it is a sock of the user you are alleging it to be? Should we block you as well? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I have not: please supply the diffs.
    This User was banned last night, yet again for making personal attacks on me. They have used over 80 IP sockpuppet accounts to date. We did do a CheckUser several months ago, which confirmed that it was him, and the pattern of behaviour has continued, indeed degenerated, since then. Please review the actions of those IP addresses. CheckUser specifically says that we must use our common sense in establishing who is using multiple IP addresses. --Mais oui! 11:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [1], [2], [3], [4]. The first edit explictly says that it was a revert. Three revert-ruled breached. You should not revert-war even when you are reverting sockpuppets. I cannot take any action against the other user even if he is a sockpuppet, unless you provide evidence and are ready to get blocked yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is not a 3RR: please note that the first diff is at 08:12 on the 16th February, not the 17th. They are not within a 24 hour period.
    I have provided the evidence that the IP adress did a revert to "in pawn to" 4 times in a 24 hour period: a crystal clear breach of WP:3RR. --Mais oui! 11:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A difference of two hours? This can be equated with gaming the system. WP:3RR does not give you the right to keep reverting without trying to initiate discussion. Get other involved users to comment here. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone is "gaming the system" it is User:Mallimak.
    But OK, I will make a request that Admin User:Wangi (who, you will note, has also repeatedly reverted Mallimak's sockpuppet IPs) comments at this 3RR, and the Admin who blocked him last night. Anyone else you would like to get a comment from? Many, many Admins have had to deal with Mallimak's multitude of IP addresses. I am not going to waste my Saturday any further by spamming them all. --Mais oui! 11:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and on your point of "trying to initiate a discussion": we have tried on literally hundreds of occasions to reason with Mallimak. But you just look through his contributions and IP contributions: does that look like someone who is open to discussion to you? --Mais oui! 11:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am responding both because MO posted a link to this discussion on my talk page, and in light of "Get other involved users to comment here" posted by Nick - given I was one of the reverters (on MO's talk page attacks made by the user) and someone who has followed this sitation from the start, it is probably useful I give my view. I have to say this one has gone on too long. A user who was attempting to push some sort of Orkney separatist view and running socks to do it. The user was found out, and has since, over numerous months, attempted to troll, goad and make personal attacks. To counter the "MO was gaming the system" type chatter doesn't sit with the facts - he is attempting to deal with someone who has a new IP address every day - has no interest in discussion and is now only interested in a personal attack and vendetta campaign. Hiding behind dynamically assigned IP addresses the person runs around making a fool out of the rules/policies/guidelines which all the rest of us follow. Frankly I don't know why this is allowed - I would say it is getting into the "contact his ISP" territory. The person isn't interested in discussion - if they were they would stick to their original account rather than hiding behind dynamic IP's. I can't say MO has handled the situation perfectly either, some of his actions have probably exacerbated rather than calmed the situation - that being said it doesn't excuse the blatant breaches of rules which Mallimak has consistently shown on countless occasions. Something has to be done. SFC9394 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This was going to go on Mais oui!'s talk page, but it's going here instead. MO suggested on his talk page an indefinite ban of Mallimak. Here's the problem with such a proposal as I see it:
    1. Bans are not imposed likely. More evidence than supposedly coincidental editing patterns (a CheckUser, for a start) is needed, especially since there is the potential for a lot of collateral damage. It is somewhat unfair to block out most of wherever they might be editing from just to tackle one user.
    2. Practicality. The ban would provide for no further punishment than can already be meted out for vandalism.
    3. The principle of clean hands. MO's own behaviour is not exactly stellar, such as seemingly reverting any edit they disagree with on sight, or labelling other users as "abusive" without actually presenting any evidence (don't need to look far through the history to see accusations levelled at another user - get a RFCU done before throwing that around). There's even evidence of revert warring where the edit summaries are to the effect of "stop revert warring". It's a bit like telling someone to stop shooting at you while you unload an Uzi into their shin.
    4. (*puts on devil's advocate hat*) At some point, someone is going to ask why it always seems to be MO on the receiving end of the "personal attacks" (given most of our long-term vandals don't discriminate), and if perhaps it's actually MO that has a problem. (*removes hat*)
    Given this has gone on for 4 months, it's probably safe to say MO is fairly deeply embroiled in it, so much so that some might consider reverting such edits to be a potential conflict of interest. If the edits really are that bad, I would suggest MO flag it up and let someone else deal with it. Vandalism cannot be condoned, but there are some serious WP:OWN issues here. Chris cheese whine 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I admit that I am a sock puppet, but a sock puppet out of necessity, because Mais oui! got me blocked by repeatedly accusing me of being a sock puppet of Mallimak, and the admins believed him. I am in fact Orkadian. I just cannot stand by and watch Mais oui! be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to continue with his behaviour. Here is a pertinent quote from my user page

    I would agree that Mais_oui does indulge in edit warring, and attacking the contributions of other users. After I had nominated a Scottish template for deletion in favour of the British one- he responded by reverting all my recent edits with the comments- "rv English Nationalist" (see for example- [5]). Also any attempts to engage with the user and avoid edit wars is usually met with personal abuse- eg [6]. Astrotrain 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is littered with such comments about Mais oui! from independent users who are not sock puppets of some grand anti-Mais oui! sock puppet master. 81.158.167.80 15:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. It would be nice if I, Orkadian,could be unblocked and allowed to edit under my own name, but then again, on past experience, Mais oui! would simply track me and revert my every edit. Here is another relevant quotation:

    I don't wish to be drawn into the specific complaint raised by Mallimak. However, Mais oui! has also falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and now routinely reverts my edits simply because they are my edits, without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus. He is the only user against whom I have encountered these problems....Normalmouth 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

    I do wish the "Mais oui! problem" would be resolved. 81.158.167.80 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be a shame to have a prolific and well informed editor such as Mais oui! driven away or "disciplined" when simply trying to protect himself and the Wikipedia project as a whole from the constant vandalism and sustained attacks of one particular person, the attacks against him appear to have reached the ridiculous stage, the attacker appears to behave as if they are suffering from some form of OCD. Fraslet 17:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Fraslet, I believe you are confusing victim and perpetrator here. Mais oui! is far from being a well-informed editor, he is an ardent POV pusher who does not hesitate to attack any contributors who gainsay him. For example, Mallimak (whom Mais oui! has constantly accused me of being a sock puppet of, until the admins blocked me) initiated many well-informed Orkney-related articles, and was all set to add many more to Wikipedia (all to the encyclopaedia's benefit) until he fell foul of Mais oui!'s attacks, abuse and destructive editing. I am acquainted with "Mallimak" in true life, and I met him a few weeks ago in the Orkney Archive researching for one of his local newspaper articles. He told me that he has totally given up on Wikipedia, and since his experiences here advises everyone to be wary of the accuracy of its articles. This is all down to Mais oui!, I am afraid. 81.156.60.8 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC) (actually Orkadian)[reply]
    I am not keen on being quoted in this matter- I have never called for him to be banned or blocked. In anycase, these matters are not relevant to 3RR and should be continued elsewhere. Astrotrain 17:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no time at all for "users" which show contempt for our policies, guidelines and procedures and continually come back from a multitude of IPs to continue making the same edits. If they want to be taken seriously then they should seek to discuss, not constantly repeat edits and aggravate. Thanks/wangi 10:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Wangi, You say "If they want to be taken seriously then they should seek to discuss, not constantly repeat edits and aggravate." Please tell this to Mais oui!. I have been forced to contribute via IPs as Mais oui! constantly accused me of being a sock puppet and the administrators (you, maybe) blocked me. 81.156.63.168 12:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (actually Orkadian)[reply]

    User:NYScholar reported by User:Armon (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Middle East Quarterly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [7]
    Comments
    NYScholar has made some minor changes to the version he reverts to which appears to be gaming. How minor they are becomes hard to tell because he marks all of his edits, including his reverts, this way. He been asked to stop that here and on the article talk page here.
    The user is taking advantage of the current backlog in 3RR report enforcement, and reverting yet again, while continuing to deceptively label his edits as "minor". Isarig 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nssdfdsfds reported by User:Catchpole (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Anne Milton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nssdfdsfds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    First time I've done this so bear with me.

    The first revert is not the same as 2,3 and 4.
    "1st revert": I removed content that referred to an attack blog created against Anne Milton, asking Catchpole to "direct me to this consensus with a URL link? thanks". He left a message for me with the link at 21:46 [10], and added back the content. Having read this, I made no further edits to the page, while continuing to edit other articles that evening.
    The next day user Fys added to Catchpole's edit a link to that attack blog: [11]
    In reverts 2, 3, and 4 left the content in that was removed in revert 1, but removed the URL that had been added by Fys.
    So there are two completely separate issues here. Issue 1, in revert 1 was mentioning the blog. Issue 2 in revert 2, 3 and 4 was including the URL of the blog. There's nothing whatsoever in common between 'revert 1' and reverts 2-4. This can easily be verified - the edit before revert 1 had no URL in it, and the edits before reverts 2-4 did. Revert 2-4 did not remove anything that was removed in revert 1, so they are not the same at all. Note that Catchpole was happy on 15/2/07 with mentioning the attack blog, but not linking to it, but following Fys' addition of the URL has decided more recently that the URL *should* go in there. These are separate issues, and responding with false allegations of breaking 3RR isn't helpful.
    Catchpole left me a warning on my talk page claiming I'd broken the 3RR. I responded pointing out that this was wrong, as although I'd made four sets of edits within 23 hours and 48 minutes, the first was different from the other three, so there was no breach. After getting my response explaining this, he has for some reason still decided to waste my time by adding this report here that I've now had to respond to. Nssdfdsfds 18:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deeceevoice reported by User:strothra (Result:Already blocked 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Black People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    User:Skyring reported by User:BenAveling (Result:24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Pauline Hanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Skyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [12] For eg. I can't say that there is a single version being reverted to. We've been trying to add some information for days, in different ways, and they all get reverted. This has been going on for days. Just FYI, [13] is the source that Skyring thinks is unacceptable. And yes, he has been warned about 3RR on the talk page of the article in question. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1st revert: [14] Revision as of 17:43, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Current Events - Remove poorly sourced and untrue rubbish again. As for the other, see Talk)
    • 2nd revert: [15] Revision as of 12:50, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) m (Remove poorly-sourced, untrue material under WP:BLP. If you want to reinsert challenged material, gain a consensus first, please.)
    • 3rd revert: [16] Revision as of 12:05, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Attempted return to politics - She didn't attribute it to rape and pillage. This is quite untrue.)
    • 4th revert: [17] Revision as of 10:00, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (This doesn't address the problems identified with the source, and the "attributed to" construction
    • 5th revert: [18] Revision as of 09:24, 18 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Quotations - remove rubbish. It's not notable, it's poorly sourced, and the quote is misleading.)
    • 6th revert: [19] Revision as of 15:17, 17 February 2007 (edit) (undo) Skyring (Talk | contribs) (→Quotations - Rewording of DNA stunt quote doesn't overcome the problems. See talk.)

    User:Somethingoranother reported by User:Gsd2000 {Result:48 hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

    Warning about reverting re England (user is simultaneously reverting UK and England): [24]

    This user has already been blocked several times for 3RR violations.

    Gsd2000 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is now using a sockpuppet to make the same edit [25] Gsd2000 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kevin Murray reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kevin Murray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    First 5 reverts are not identical, but all involve restoring the long table at the end of the article seen in the first revert. Four of the reverts are simple reverts: [26][27][28][29]Ultramarine 05:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly edit warring against the consensus: 24h. yandman 11:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MoeLarryAndJesus reported by User:Athaenara (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Seth Swirsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MoeLarryAndJesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    This article and its talk page are the only pages the user has edited since registering the ID 18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC). The user has generated incalculable disruption, incivility, POV-warring in less than 48 hours. Wikipedia:Third opinion was to no avail. Problem posted on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#19 February 2007; user misrepresented situation there 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (though that noticeboard guideline specifically asks that discussion remain where it began).   Athaenara 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The warning was given an hour after the last reversion. As this is a new editor, maybe he was unaware of 3RR. Have we got anything showing he was made aware of it before the last reversion? yandman 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    8th, 9th and 10th reverts followed 3RR warning. Athaenara 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, My name is Seth Swirsky. Someone made an article of me which is quite extensive now (and of course, very flattering). Although I write songs and am an author, I also write political articles that "MoeLarryJesus" isn't a fan of (his vitriolic personal emails to me attest to this). Someone alerted me to his description of me as a "self-described conservative", which I am not. Nowhere on the internet do I describe myself this way. Actually, I am a self-described "Democrat in the Henry "Scoop" jackson tradition". There are two cites that I offer for this in the now long "talk section" regarding this dispute. I changed back, probably clumsily, as I don't really "know" wikipedia, the original description of myself, which is the correct one. He has reverted to what he claims I said I am, at least 7 times. Another editor has reprimanded him for this -- and Yandman suggested MoeLarryJesus needed to be made more aware that his constant reversions were not right. But, of course, today he has already reverted it back. I even offered a compromise to all of this just to stop wasting everyone's time, but he will have no part of it which leads me to suspect that he is obsessed with me personally --I'm the only page he reverts in the last 3 or 4 days. Scary (coupled with the emails). Can someone please read the talk pages and please (hopefully) ban him --it's really getting a bit distressing. Thank you for reading this. -- Seth Swirsky

    It is completely false that I have sent "SethSwirsky" any e-mails, and I consider that accusation to be libelous.

    Yes, I am a new user, and I am reverting the edits both because an editor ruled in my favor - see the history - and because MY EDIT is being reverted continually. Why does this "no revert" rule apply to me but not to this "Swirsky"? Is it simply because his ally Athaenara is more familiar with the system and complained first? His/her bias and unfairness is obvious, beginning with the fact that he/she is allowing "Swirsky" to post this unsupported allegation of "harrassing e-mails" on his/her talk page while deleting my responses denying same. MoeLarryAndJesus 22:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Athaenara writes: [Problem posted on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#19 February 2007; user misrepresented situation there 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (though that noticeboard guideline specifically asks that discussion remain where it began). Athaenara 05:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)] And yet Athaenara has no qualms whatsoever about carrying on a conversation with "SethSwirsky" on Athaenara's own talk page about the same discussion, while deleting my own attempts to respond there. The hypocrisy is positively mind-boggling! MoeLarryAndJesus 22:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tedblack reported by User:Nareklm (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Great Fire of Smyrna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tedblack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User:Nomenclator reported by User:Skinwalker (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Veganism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nomenclator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    User is making controversial edits that are opposed by all other editors on talk page. He was blocked last week for 3RR as well. Thanks! Skinwalker 14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wrestlinglover420 reported by User:SaliereTheFish (Result:2x24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Ultimate Spider-Man (story arcs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SaliereTheFish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    User repeatedly deletes verified information, not because he thinks this information is unverified but as a vendetta against me for removing information he put in the article that was unverified. I have challenged him frequently for his irresponsible vandalism, and he merely hurls abuse at me. The member has been banned from editing this article before, and has a history of abuse towards others. He claims that he joined Wiki 'beacuse i refuse to back down'. I would suggest banning him from Wiki outright. SaliereTheFish 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but this is clearly a content dispute, so 24h each. yandman 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kurt Leyman reported by User:Potaaatos (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Battle of Stalingrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kurt Leyman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: [34]
    • 1st revert: [35] 15:51, 18 February 2007]
    • 2nd revert: [36] 23:16, 18 February 2007
    • 3rd revert: [37] 11:12, 19 February 2007
    • 4th revert: [38] 16:41, 19 February 2007


    Comments

    The user has been blocked several times before for violating the 3rr rule. All of the users edits in the past several weeks have been reverted by many people in many articles. And the user is locked in an edit war in those as well. The user shows no understanding for wikipedia rules or policies. The user inserts material without a reliable reference, in this specific case "a movie that he saw". The user has made several personal attacks including calling me "ignorant". The user fully knows about the 3rr rule because he has been blocked several times for breaking it yet he continues to do so again and again Potaaatos 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm too involved to rule on this one but I will point out that there is more than 24 hours before the first and last revert. And really, both users are at fault here. There's about 2 days between Potaaatos' 1st and 4th revert but he's also been edit warring on that article. [39], [40], [41], [42]. Honestly, I think both should be blocked. Kurt is labeling legit edits as vandalism and Potaaatos keeps citing policy and not always correctly. it's a typical edit war. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 23:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    If I may point out that I have never violated the 3rr rule and thus should not be blocked at all, and I have never been warned for anything ever. The main difference here is that he has several times violated the 3rr rule where as I have not. The policy which I have linked shows that all information that is added without a source may be removed. The User Kurt has been blocked several times, he is right now involved in several edit wars, and has been involved several times on this specific page and gotten reverted every single time in the past, like most of his edits do. And if I also may point out that Kurts edits on admin Woohookitty page and admin Woohookitty on Kurts page seem to show that they are "chumy" with each other so it is perfectly understandable that Woohookitty is now trying to help his friend.Potaaatos 00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.227.105.32 reported by User:Montco (Result:1 week)

    Three-revert rule violation on Geoff Hurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and George Best (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    and

    Comment User is adding links to sites that sell products related to the players in question. Neither site is affiliated with the players. Have attempted reverting the links, but failed. Finally left a warning and brought this here. I plead guilty to have violated it myself in dealing with this individual. My bad. I throw myself on the mercy of the court.Montco 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The user wasn't warned for 3RR. Why?--Wildnox(talk) 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I reverted 2 of his edits, as they do appear to be linkspam.--Wildnox(talk) 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fugghedaboutit, he's clearly a linkspammer. 1 week as I'm not sure how static his IP is. If he crops up again, tell me. yandman 18:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:194.144.111.210 reported by User:Wildnox (Result:4 months)

    Three-revert rule violation on Nu metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 194.144.111.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    User has been blocked for 3RR four times and two times for vandalism. He has never entered a user or article talk page save for his own talk page to remove warnings and block notices. I don't think he has any intention to anything other than edit war on wikipedia. --Wildnox(talk) 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Waste of everyone's time. 4 months. yandman 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:88.110.12.67 reported by User:Gsd2000 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 88.110.12.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User:Somethingoranother was already blocked for 48 hours for 3RR violations, and is currently blocked. They then proceeded to use their anon IP to make the same reverts:

    Comments

    User:83.19.173.202 reported by User:HongQiGong (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 83.19.173.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three-revert rule violation on Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 83.19.173.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    User:FunkyFly reported by User:MatriX (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Yane Sandanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FunkyFly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Diff of 3RR warning: He/she has been warned of 3RR violations many times before:[51], [52],[53] etc.
    Comments

    User FunkyFly has made 5 reverts on this page in the period between 16 and 19 February. Although he/she was careful not to make fourth revert, it is an obvious case of edit warring. He/she is not a new user and is aware that the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day. Edit warring is his/her style and that can be seen in the following articles history: [54], [55], [56] etc. MatriX 19:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No actual 3RR. Absolutely analogous edit pattern of MatriX.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly a pottle-ket issue here. But boy, are they both black. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am caucasian.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ideogram reported by User:Badagnani (Result:)

    First diff is not a revert. Sorry for calling you an idiot. --Ideogram 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It's the same edit (i.e. removal of valid wikilink) four times. Badagnani 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not the way things work here. And it wasn't a valid wikilink, it was a double-redirect. --Ideogram 21:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You made the same edit four times within one hour. That is 4RR. It was not a double redirect but a simple wikilink to List of traditional Chinese musical instruments. In fact, it's not a redirect of any sort. Badagnani 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Martinphi reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Psychic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    Reversions to different versions, but reversions nonetheless. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sample violation report to copy

    ===[[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result:)===

[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:

* Previous version reverted to:  [http://VersionLink VersionTime]
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
-->

;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

    Note on completing a 3RR report:

    • Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
    • Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
    • We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
    • Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=109429006"