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
Line 1,078: Line 1,078:
::: And my final post for this, unless there are questions for me, specifically: the old version reverted to had the Catholic section, but also had the supreme court paragraph. In other words, he's gone 3 reverts on the Catholic section, and 3 reverts on the supreme court paragraph, which is SFAICT not technically violating 3RR, but he's been around long enough to know that he's edit warring. That's counting awfully close. I would be ok with reversing the block, or with letting it stand. And I would much appreciate someone else checking this, because we now have two findings on this 3RR report, and they do not agree. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::: And my final post for this, unless there are questions for me, specifically: the old version reverted to had the Catholic section, but also had the supreme court paragraph. In other words, he's gone 3 reverts on the Catholic section, and 3 reverts on the supreme court paragraph, which is SFAICT not technically violating 3RR, but he's been around long enough to know that he's edit warring. That's counting awfully close. I would be ok with reversing the block, or with letting it stand. And I would much appreciate someone else checking this, because we now have two findings on this 3RR report, and they do not agree. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::: Never mind, my brain finally did math. Apologies for the spam. Neither is 3RR, due to the time difference (and DO check my math on the time, please.) [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 23:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::: Never mind, my brain finally did math. Apologies for the spam. Neither is 3RR, due to the time difference (and DO check my math on the time, please.) [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup> 23:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::::I would not be in a position to take any administrative action with regard to Str1977, as he is a personal friend. However, having stated that, I'd like to point out that the first revert is completely outside the 24-hour period. The fifth revert doesn't seem to be a revert at all, but even if it were, it's worth noting that it's the very next edit after the fourth revert; nobody had edited in between. Therefore, he could have done the two edits in one go, by doing a full page edit instead of two separate sections. It is standard practice not to count consecutive edits as separate reverts, even if they are both ''technically'' reverts. So what we have is three reverts within a 24-hour period. It is also worth noting that in the same period, he made eighteen edits to the talk page. Some were just modifications rather than new posts, but there were about fifteen individual posts &mdash; more than came from Benjiboi, who has also been reverting. I would suggest an unblock, but I admit that it's a suggestion coming from a friend of the blocked user, rather than a neutral review from an uninvolved administrator. [[User:Musical Linguist|Musical L]][[User talk:Musical Linguist|inguist]] 23:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


===[[User:Entre-Nos]] reported by [[User:Jbmurray]] (Result: User warned)===
===[[User:Entre-Nos]] reported by [[User:Jbmurray]] (Result: User warned)===

Revision as of 23:17, 13 June 2007

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to remove disputes to user talk pages.

    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:ItamarPH.D reported by User:Csernica (Result: 24 hour)

    Talpiot Tomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ItamarPH.D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 21:02, 7 June 2007 The substance of the matter is the editor's link to his own blog and mention of his own self-published novel.
    Blocked for 24hr for this and many other concerns (conflict of interest, external link, edit warring, verifiability and reliable sources). Thanks/wangi 20:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:65.9.234.169 reported by User:Rgfolsom (Result:no vio)

    Chartered Market Technician (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Market Technicians Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Technical analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.9.234.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Chartered Market Technician reverts (partial list of 21 edits/reverts in past 24 hours)

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

    Market Technicians Association reverts (partial list of 10 edits/reverts in past 24 hours)

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

    Technical analysis reverts (partial list of 21 edits/reverts in past 24 hours)

    • 1st revert: [7]
    • 2nd revert: [8]
    • 3rd revert: [9]

    The Market Technicians Association edit history and an IP address search suggest that 65.9.234.169 is the same user as 72.153.201.174. I explained my edits and tried to engage the user on the respective article talk pages[10] [11] [12], and on the user's own talk page[13]. Some of his edits are harmless, but a full review of the edits to the articles in question shows POV, lack of sources to controversial edits, personal criticisms of people by name, plus the unexplained removal of relevant information and links in the articles. Thanks for your attention to this matter. --Rgfolsom 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Only three diffs given for each article; need four reverts for 3RR vio. Also, these diffs appear to include several consecutive edits, which would count as one revert per 3RR. Looking at the article histories suggests mainly consecutive edits. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Corticopia reported by User:Jbmurray (Result:stale)

    Latin America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Corticopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [14]

    I gave him a friendly warning on the talk page last night.[19]

    NB he also seems to on three reverts for United States, but declares he'll come back tomorrow and revert again.[20]

    Comment We are discussing the issue, throughout which the reporter has failed to suggest worthwhile editions and is counterproductive, and the last edit was insinuated anonymously (which is curious given the position of this editor). As well, the last edit rectified other POV changes regarding 'America'. And, yes, I shall return. Corticopia 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not sure what you mean by that, Corticopia. Anyway, I'm not convinced the second diff given is actually a revert; seems more like a tweak, as in the edit summary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reverts of "here" (supposedly for being "unencyclopedic syntax"), of "that" (for "the") and the reinstation of the un-needed wikilink to "region" are all consistent reverts. Yes, I know these reverts are petty. But it's an obstacle to coming up with a sentence that is clear enough that it doesn't endlessly raise problems. You can see the discussion on the talk page where I try to seek a contrstructive solution to the problem, only to face his reverts and (as above) commentary which is often scarcely intelligible. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The original content editions are petty, and for not what: if these editions were enhancements, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But jbm's editions are confused/-ing: 'here above all' (unencyclopedic syntax which really makes no sense), substituting 'the' for 'that' (petty nonsense), and dewikifying 'region' from the lead (which flies in the face of the Manual of Style) all demonstrate that. My last edit/diff, H, was meant to rectify a number of changes from an anonymous IP, above all the uncommon reckoning of the Americas in English as just 'America' (one continent). And jbm's discourse is anything but constructive: for example, on the talk page, I offered to substitute the current definition in LA with one from a reputable source (with the intent of sourcing it), with jbm insinuating that I would plagiarise. Anyhow, the above is one veiled ad hominem argument, which I won't otherwise deal with: apropos, I am compelled to completely avoid this editor hereafter, but will nonetheless edit as needed within the norms of Wikiquette. Corticopia 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here are the edits to the US article:
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
      • He was then warned about his actions here 4, but then removed the warning on his talk page 5. He also wrote this message on the US talk page 6.
        • I realize that he didn't go over 3 reverts on the US page, however his actions are highly disruptive, and he was already reported for his edits to Latin America. BH (T|C) 04:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also note, the user in question has been blocked 5 times already for 3RR violations, the last one began on May 20 of this year, and lasted one week. A sixth block also occurred, however it was repealed after a re-check of the pages edit history. BH (T|C) 05:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corticopia, please be civil. As for this report: the original is clearly stale, while the new set of diffs shows only three revert, so there's no action to be made here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Assault11 reported by User:Good friend100 (Result:no vio)

    List of tributaries of Imperial China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Assault11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [21]
    I think this user at least deserves a warning because he deletes my warnings [25] on 3RR.
    I'm sure Assault is aware of 3RR, he has stopped reverting my compromise edits before the 4th revert. He simply deletes anything that he doesn't like. Good friend100 23:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Good friend100 reported by User:Assault11 (Result:)

    List of tributaries of Imperial China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [26]

    Good friend100 has been blocked at least 4 times for violation of the 3RR policy in the past month [27]. Assault11 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that I attempted to write down a compromised edit, which I believe is fair for both sides. Good friend100 02:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand why you cannot cooperate with others. "Tributary relations occurred on and off until the 7th century" is fair to both sides. I don't understand why everything has to be your way. Good friend100 02:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There was never a compromise that was accepted (and that "compromise" addition is not just limited to Gaogouli). It should be noted that Good friend100 had been criticized by various other editors for his lack of understanding on the subject [28] [29]. Despite this, Good friend100 continued to revert back to his edits containing false information (e.g. tributary relations ended in 106 CE - a date he has now changed to 7th century CE, after being proved wrong). Assault11 03:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to bring the argument here. However, I would like to point out that your first edit to wikipedia clearly shows your POV manner and your unwillingness to compromise. Good friend100 19:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the 3RR, this illustrates your attitude completely--I have little interest in this particular article, I don't think I've ever edited it, but you constantly use the fact that you are reverting "to the right version" as a justification for breaking 3RR. It isn't. Until you're blocked, you just keep reverting until someone forces you to take a break and cool down. —LactoseTIT 19:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I guess your right, LactoseTI. We should simply leave the article alone. Good friend100 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Didn't it just get unprotected? I guess they were trying to stop this edit war, but it just started up immediately after unprotection. —LactoseTIT 19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LactoseTI, do you want me blocked that bad? Trying to rub in more evidence doesn't really make a difference. The point is that I got reported. As for Assault11, I believe that he is at fault to because of his obvious POV and his stubborness. Don't you think that too, Lactose, after reading his first edit (link above)? Good friend100 19:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For any admins looking in on this - take a look at the Talk page, I've been trying to have the two editors come to a compromise. I personally have no preference on the content of their dispute, and I'm not going to comment on these 3RR violations. And while I do think both editors have been pretty insistent on their edits, I do think Good friend100 has been more compromising in the last day or two. The current text that they've just edit-warred on is already a step away from what Good friend100 would like to have. I left a note in the Talk page asking Assault11 what problems he saw with the current proposed compromise, but he has not replied yet, and instead chose to revert the text. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Avfnx reported by User:YoSoyGuapo (Result: 24 hours)

    Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    comment has left statements on comments when he reverts like " 12:11, 9 June 2007 Avfnx (Talk | contribs) m (65,740 bytes) (we could do this all day, what that got do with DR)" [30]

    Blocked for 24 hours, per the evidence above. -- tariqabjotu 18:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This user has not appear to have previously been formally warned regarding 3RR. This diff shows that it is commented he might be in breach of 3RR but, and despite the edit summary, there is no mention of the possible consequences or a demand that he stop. I realise that warnings are a courtesy and editors are expected to know and abide by the rules, and that 3RR should be acted upon promptly, but I am a little concerned that User:Avfnx has been previously accused of sockpuppetry (cleared by checkuser), has had warnings for civility and personal attacks - the first of which is WP:KETTLE and the second of which I could find no evidence of in English (I cannot comment on Spanish remarks) - all levelled by individuals with whom he is in dispute with on Dominican Republic. I have a suspicion that some individuals are using admins and WP policies to conduct a campaign against this editor instead of attempting to resolve the dispute over the article in a more appropriate forum.LessHeard vanU 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jakeleglarry reported by User:Calton (Result: Indef)

    Peter Roskam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jakeleglarry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Allegedly brand-new user, an obvious single-purpose sockpuppet of indefinitely banned multiple sockpuppeter Joehazelton (talk · contribs), continuing his edit warring campaign. --Calton | Talk 12:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely as a single-purpose account (and possible sockpuppet). -- tariqabjotu 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ofthe1780s reported by User:Ultramarine (Result:12h)

    Capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ofthe1780s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also probably violation of WP:SOAP by trying to promote cult-like movement.Ultramarine 13:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TiconderogaCCB reported by User:YoSoyGuapo (Result: 48h (Ti), 24h (Yo))

    User talk:YoSoyGuapo (edit | [[Talk:User talk:YoSoyGuapo|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was just taken off of block for 3rr. continues to attack me personally on my talk page. I removed the attacks and he continued to attack me with "What the hell is you problem??? Do you lack any ability to reason? I have tried endlessly to engage you on discussion and talk pages, but instead you act like a 12 year old (which you quite possibly could be). Why do you continue to revert to an absurd version of the St. John's article? Did you get denied admission, are you a UConn fan" Immediately after getting offof block he goes back to the same article and does 3 more reverts [31] with the last one being 13:45, 9 June 2007 [32] . YoSoyGuapo 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ticonderoga is blocked for 48h (since this is his second block) and YoSoyGuapo is blocked for 24h. -- tariqabjotu 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Raul654 reported by User:Isarig (Result: No violation)

    House demolition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Raul654 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: Complex revert. See belwo for details
    • 1st revert: 16:44, 9 June 2007 - restores sentence "particularly an insurgency which employs suicide attacks" (this sentence was in this prev version)- labeled as a "restore" in the edit summary.
    • 2nd revert: 16:49, 9 June 2007 - restores sentence "House demolition has been used in an on-again-off-again fashion by the Israeli government during the al-Aqsa Intifada." (this sentence was in this prev version)- labeled as a "restore" in the edit summary
    • 3rd revert: 17:11, 9 June 2007 - restores both the above sentences, labeled as a revert in the edit summary
    • 4th revert: 17:41, 9 June 2007 - as above, again restores both the above sentences, and labeled as a revert in the edit summary

    The first two reverts are unrelated (two separate almost back-to-back edits restoring content Isarig has deleted as part of his on-going edit warring on that article), meaning this is actually only three reverts. Isarig, meanwhile, has been revert warring over that article for a while, to push his particular POV. Raul654 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As an admin, you must surely be aware that 3rr refers to ANY 3 reverts, they do not have to be the same or related. I appreciate you honesty in admitting that both of these are in fact reverts. A break from editing this article will do you good. Isarig 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy smokes, you removed objective, factually correct content. I restored it using two edits. You continued removing it, despite multiple people on the talk page disagreeing with you. You are POV pushing on that article, and your edits have made it objectively wrong. This listing is ridiculous. Raul654 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are describing above is a content dispute, in which you, too, have removed well sourced information in at least 2 of your reverts. "I restored it using two edits" is another way of syaing I twice reverted you. You are not above the law, no matter how long you have been editing here- 3RR applies to admins as well as to non admin editors. I duly warned you about it, you acknowledged on my talk page that you made 3 reverts, and then proceeded to revert a 4th time. There is nothing ridiculous about this listing, except the ludicrous claim, below, that there are only 3 reverts here. Isarig 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) A 3RR violation occurs when four reverts have been made, not three. Raul is not a longtime edit warrior, so there is no reason to think he's gaming the system attempting to "max out" on the three allotted reverts. There's no violation here. -- tariqabjotu 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 4 reverts there - count them. Isarig 23:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    A long time use and admin who knows about 3RR and has been blocked for it before, but was warned nonetheless: [33]

    User:Good_friend100 reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:No block / both users warned)

    Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good_friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • 2nd revert: 18:40, June 9, 2007 (reinserted Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks (they are the same thing) as mis-translation of Usando) undoing this change
    • 3rd revert: 19:14, June 9, 2007 same effect; removes name from map (Isotakeshima) and replaces with Liancourt Rocks; again removes "For comparison," reverting to this.
    • 4th revert: 19:48, June 9, 2007 again removes Isotakeshima

    Editor has been blocked three times for 3RR several times in the past month. It is true that the four reverts are outside 24 hours by 7 minutes, but this is clear gamesmanship. Consider this in tandem with the other report of 3RR filed today on the same editor (6 reports or so above this one). Editor evidently doing this on multiple articles--on that one he seems to have clearly broken it, here he tried to game the system.

    Ok, I edited all the articles in good faith. I changed "Takeshima" to "Liancourt Rocks" because that is the name of the article. It isn't fair to use Takeshima while blocking out Dokdo.
    I don't think I have been engaging in a blatant edit war. Also, could you explain what you mean by "gamesmanship"? I feel really bad how you keep attacking me with reports and filing one that does not have 3 reverts in one day. These edits were simply to make the gallery section better. Good friend100 20:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The map actually says Takeshima on it, it's not blocking. Anyway, hitting your 3RR limit day and again, and then waiting until just outside 24 hours to make your 4th revert so as to avoid violating 3RR is not allowed. This is what I meant by gamesmanship. —LactoseTIT 20:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't wait 24 hours to make my 4th edit. That was purely coincidence. I don't play around with the time to make reverts and edits. I don't play at that kind of a level.

    And I still feel that "Takeshima" should not be used. Now I know why melonbarmonster keeps tagging you with warnings. You and other editors simply cannot take anything that you don't like. When a change you don't like is done (regardless of good faith or bad faith), you revert the edits without explanation and don't explain on the talk page of the edit warring persists. I feel that you are not treating each editor in an NPOV way. Even when Assault11 clearly is POV and makes rude comments, you don't even care. When melonbarmonster asks you to stop stalking, you simply make a sarcastic comment that he should file a report against you.

    I don't feel that I am the only one at fault. There is more than just edit warring going on and if you are trying to show that I am the bad seed, then your wrong. There is enough damage done to both sides. Good friend100 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is not for the dispute to continue, it's about 3RR's. See response on your talk page, we can discuss the off topic material there. —LactoseTIT 20:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider both editors to be warned. Editwarring only ends up in one of two scenarios: either you get dinged for 3RR, oir the article gets protected. If you cannot find common ground and edit the article, please follow the dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Vilerocks reported by User:A Man In Black (Result:24 hrs)

    Ciel (Mega Man Zero) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Vilerocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There are probably a couple more; I can't be arsed to link them all. Doing 3RR reports is tedious.

    This is after days of revert warring on the same article over a different issue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hrs. Next time, please file the 3RR report as required, even if tedious. Do not expect admins to do the research work for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add some extra info: Vilerocks' former account has been blocked twice before for 3RR.[37] I do not know whether or not this may affect the block, but it should be noted. - Zero1328 Talk? 08:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did do the research. Would it've really mattered if I linked five diffs instead of four? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pompertown reported by User:216.21.150.44 (Result: 1 month)

    Standing on the Shoulder of Giants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pompertown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Pompertown (talk · contribs) has already been warned several times previously for edit warring and has just returned from a 3RR block involving the same article. previous block log. User also edits anonymously under with the IP 69.117.52.248 which has also broken 3RR on multiple Oasis related articles. 216.21.150.44 12:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1 month, user should be well aware after that many blocks that edit warring is not acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tecmobowl reported by User:John254 (Result:48h)

    Kevin Youkilis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: complex partial reversions, all of which remove content and/or links

    User:Ethioboy101 reported by User:Yom (Result: 24 hrs)

    Eritrean-Ethiopian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ethioboy101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.112.235.194 and User:71.112.237.155 seem to be Ethioboy101 when not logged in. Ethioboy101's edits to the page have mainly consisted of changing the result of the war to "Stalemate" without discussion (see these earlier edits: 1, 2, by 71.112.237.155 - 3), as well as removing certain cited information from the casualties part of the infobox (see earlier edit - a; Today's edits - b, c), which were reverted by myself, User:Philip Baird Shearer (1, 2), and User:Gyrofrog (1). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Randyreporter --Philip Baird Shearer 22:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:QuackGuru reported by User:Levine2112 (Result: No block)

    Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [38]


    User:Bless sins reported by User:Prester John (Result: 36h)

    List of notable converts to Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bless sins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Prester John 22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keeps whitewashing various descriptions; for example, removing statements Tawana Brawley's charges were fabricated, that John Walker Lindh was a convicted terrorist, that Yvonne Ridley had been kidnapped by the Taliban, and that Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist. On the fifth revert, unfixed some wording improvements that had to be reverted again by another editor. Will no doubt claim that the 5th revert was a "self-revert", but it was a bit too late, he'd already been reverted, and merely ended up reverting some new edits. Is now using various bogus claims to excuse himself. User:Bless sins is well aware of 3RR as his block log [39] indicates he has been blocked for edit warring before, and he has reported others for 3RR on this board, as recently as this week.

    Firstly, even if I did make four reverts, I self reverted my last revert to avoid a breach of 3rr in accordance with Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#I_have_violated_3RR._What_do_I_do.3F. I declared that this revert was self-revert. [40]

    The first revert is true. That can be considered a revert.

    The second revert is not at all a revert. Please note the difference between my alleged "Previous version reverted to" and "2nd revert". [41] The main difference is that I replaced a dead link with a better one, and also added another notable person.

    Please note the difference between my alleged "Previous version reverted to" and "3rd revert". The difference is the same as above.[42]

    The difference between "Previous version reverted to" and "4th revert", are even larger. In my fourth "reversion" I add two more notable persons to the list, and conduct some other minor edits.[43]

    The allegation that the fifth is a revert (to be counted in 3rr) is ridiculous. That is a self-revert, as I declared in my edit summary. [44]

    Thanks.Bless sins 23:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:3rr#I_have_violated_3RR._What_do_I_do.3F says "In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees." It says nothing about when it is too late to self-revert. Also, Jayjg, can you make your comments immediately below the previous comment. Thanks.Bless sins 23:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I cannot speak strongly for or against this user. Him and I have reached compromises concerning content, and he does contribute some good information, biased motivations or not.

    However, the edit-warring is a fact, although I wouldn't count the 5th revert- he clearly reverted to Prester John's edit, which is not the version he preferred; therefore, I'm inclined to believe he did intend a self-rv. Concerning the others, I really can't say. Rules are rules, of course.

    If a real complaint is to be drawn, the issue of whitewashing is certainly one of them. One can claim NPOV, but when a convicted terrorist becomes a 'soldier' and kidnapped woman's kidnapping is erased from her description, POV is an issue, but it is the one altering who is applying the POV problem.

    I must now defend Bless sins. As I've said, he and I have compromised over content. This may be underplayed by some, but to me, it means quite a bit. Additionally, Bless sins is not the only user with a preference for 'whitewashed' descriptions- I fear that there should be some resolution over the language used so that everyone can learn to be reasonably satisfied with the descriptions.

    A reasonable compromise over content will hopefully prevent the need for these Admin notices in the future.--C.Logan 00:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spoolintsi reported by User:Karrmann (Result: No block)

    Eagle Talon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Spoointsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [45]

    (All reverts were the same)

    Rejected - malformed report. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TiconderogaCCB reported by User:YoSoyGuapo (Result: 48h)

    User talk:YoSoyGuapo (edit | [[Talk:User talk:YoSoyGuapo|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TiconderogaCCB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was just taken off of block for 3rr. continues to attack on my talk page. I removed the attacks and he continued to attack me with "What the hell is you problem??? Do you lack any ability to reason? I have tried endlessly to engage you on discussion and talk pages, but instead you act like a 12 year old (which you quite possibly could be). Why do you continue to revert to an absurd version of the St. John's article? Did you get denied admission, are you a UConn fan" Immediately after getting offof block he goes back to the same article and does 3 more reverts YoSoyGuapo 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Avfnx reported by User:64.131.204.90 (Result: 24h)

    Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 64.131.204.90 23:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ; Current revision (14:37, 9 June 2007)

    Not a new user, but user is well aware of policy violations as he has removed warnings to his talk page. [47] ; User was given an initial 3rr warning on 01:04, 21 May 2007 and continues to revert articles [48].

    comment has left statements on comments when he reverts like " 12:11, 9 June 2007 Avfnx (Talk | contribs) m (65,740 bytes) (we could do this all day, what that got do with DR)" [49]
    This has already been handled a few sections up; Avfnx was blocked for twenty-four hours. -- tariqabjotu 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    moved to prevent deletion. User:tariq stated that this case was already handled, but this is a totally different 3rr violation if you look at the edits.

    The original case [50] dealt with money and payment. This 3rr report deals with the names of haiti being based on mountains. same article 2 different things in which edits were reverted at different intervals. YoSoyGuapo 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:3TTT5 reported by User:Exvicious (Result: No block)

    The Sopranos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 3TTT5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Warning issued @04:35, 11 June 2007

    In light of the rapid edits this article is getting, I'm not convinced a newbie would have seen the explanations for removal in the edit summary (or even know about page histories). I'll talk to the editor. If it happens again, re-report.--Chaser - T 15:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:206.186.8.130 reported by User:Digwuren (Result: 24h)

    Monument of Lihula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 206.186.8.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    This anonymous user has also been trying to insert spurious Estonia-Nazi associations into Judenfrei and Mart Laar.

    It looks like User:Digwuren is deleting sourced content and references. His opponents seem to think this is an attempt at "Holocaust denial". -- Petri Krohn 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    May the record indicate that Petri Krohn is the only one to have made such accusations -- his reference to an anonymous plural "opponents" is a lie. Furthermore, such accusations are baseless.
    May the record also indicate that making baseless accusations is not a new tactic by Petri Krohn, a proud self-professed troll. See, for example, User talk:Digwuren#3RR block. Digwuren 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Digwuren has a nasty habit of calling his opponents in content disputes vandals in his edit summaries: [53], [54], [55] -- Petri Krohn 15:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note, that User talk:206.186.8.130 is full of vandalism warnings, when this clearly is an content dispute. If there is any vandalism here, it is most likely coming from User:Digwuren, who is removing sourced material and categories. -- Petri Krohn 15:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've also blocked Digwuren for 48h for edit warring, if not outright 3rr, on the same article (Digwuren was blocked before for 3rr).--Chaser - T 16:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xiao t reported by User:Matt57 (Result:protected)

    Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xiao t (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning (for new user): 02:27, 11 June 2007
    • Comments: In all of these reverts, user is removing text regarding a certain subject in the article (Kenan Malik).

    In addition, this user is a possible sock puppet of an indef banned troll and so possibly not a new user (contribs show user is very familiar with editing here), the checkuser for which I have already filed and am waiting for the results. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've not looked at these diffs yet, but Matt57 recently violated 3RR on that same page and was not blocked for it, so it's the height of hypocrisy for him to report someone else. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the 3RR report against Matt57, which unfortunately led to page protection rather than a block. Matt57 is one of the worst reverters I've seen in a long time, and in fact I recently had to take the page off my watchlist in part because trying to deal with him is too frustrating. I hope whoever looks at this report will bear that context in mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that report he claimed that the first edit was an introduction of the word "controversial." I don't understand how one introduces something that has been there in the article in many other previous reversions. Ibn Shah 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right; Matt's first edit on that occasion was definitely a revert. He can't be blocked for it now so long after the fact, however. Matt will have to supply a diff showing that Xiao's first edit above was a revert. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin, really well. Looks who's talking? You being an administrator should show better editing behavior. You reverted 3 times in less than hour for this same article: 14:53,15:15,15:19. The fact that you are an administrator and reverted 3 times in less than 60 minutes should have rationally earned you a good block. Administrators should technically be held to higher standards that common users. You should leave better examples for other users on this website. In addition you have also personally attacked people by calling them. I dont beleive that you are a good example of an administrator here. Other users have also had problems with you (I can supply the diffs for that but this case is about Xiao t). As for my report, I do agree I cruised past the 3RR, that was an overlook on my part. Even that should not happen. One should not edit to just avoid 3RR (like you did in those 60 minutes when you reverted 3 times). That is troublesome tendentious editing. Maybe you're upset that I didnt let Mr. J. Hasan's opinions and picture (a non-notable graduate assistant) back in the Islamophobia article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've provided the diff above which shows the first revert of Xiao t was a revert, i.e. undoing the actions of another editor. Also you should know who you are defending. This is most likely a user who was blocked indef for trolling. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You've posted all this before in multiple locations. The bottom line is that you're a bad editor, a knee-jerk reverter, and you're out to attack Islam or Muslims. You didn't "cruise past" 3RR in the report against you, you violated it. And the report above isn't an obvious 3RR violation. The diff you give as the version reverted to doesn't show the removal of the Malik passage; it shows only that it was moved, so far as I can tell. Please supply a diff showing clearly that it had been removed before. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mind WP:CIVIL, admin whose apparent standard for notability for grad students depends on the extent to which she shares their views. Arrow740
    SlimVirgin, you really are crossing lines with me here regarding CIVIL, by calling me a knee jerk reverter and a bad editor. Do you want to be called those things too? No. Is it good to revert 3 times in less than 60 minutes like you did? No. Please dont call me a knee-jerk reverter then. Its a good thing that everything we say gets saved on this website. Regarding the first RV: As I showed, Kenan had been added back by another editor before the same day. Xiao removed it 4 times. If thats not a 3RR, what is? In any case I've fixed the proof above where Xiao had deleted the same text before and editors had restored it 2 times before. Also note that Kirbytime, the suspected puppet master of this username had been blocked multiple number of times for edit warring and 3RR. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The diff you gave appears to show the Malik material being moved, not removed or restored. Please provide a diff that actually shows its removal. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take the mudslinging elsewhere; that's not what this noticeboard is for. This article is a bloody mess, with constant reverting warring. I've chosen to fully protect it mainly to stop myself from dishing out five or more blocks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the seventh time it's been protected since March, the 14th overall. Matt, note that if the reverting continues after this protection is lifted, I'm going to consider taking you and your friends to the ArbCom. The article's been held hostage long enough. Wikipedia's not a platform for Muslim bashing. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin, perhaps that was due to your reverting once every 10 minutes (14:53,15:15,15:19)? Did you forget that? Dont threaten me with ArbCom, alright? Join me there and I'll tell the committee that your revert rate is once every 10 minutes. Plus, I'll tell them that you called me a bad editor, a knee jerk-reverter and you called me and others as "anti-Islamic". All these are personal attacks. You freely violate policies or border on violations. This is your pattern. These are just the diffs that I've seen by dealing with you directly and I have seen many other editors being irrirated by you on other places and I can dig up more diffs if needed. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nagle reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 8 hours)

    Jewish lobby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The first edit is a straightforward revert. Then he gets crafty; he "re-organizes" the article, moving material from Yossi Klein Halevi to the top of a section, moving material from David Aaronovitch up, and inserting headers for different countries.15:59, 11 June 2007 The subsequent 3 reverts continue to revert to this format, but each time with tiny changes to the text, so as to game the 3RR rule. He has been editing Wikipedia for a year and a half, and is well aware of the rules, which is why he is so good at trying to game them. Jayjg (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how crafty this is, since two of the edits are explicitly reverts in the summaries, but it is 3RRV. 8 hours. JoshuaZ 01:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.68.249.225 reported by User:Blueboar (Result:3 months)

    Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.68.249.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note misleading edit summaries and attempt to hide reverts among other edits, as well as personal attacks in edit summaries... and on Talk page. This fits with the user being a sock of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer who was banned from editing Freemasonry articles by ArbCom. Note ISP which fits with Lightbringer's known sock farm. User reported at: Wikipedia:Abuse reports but no action taken yet. Blueboar 01:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Charles reported by User:Bryson109 (Result:no vio)

    Napoleon I of France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Charles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 02:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [56]

    Note: User:Charles has been warned about the Three-revert rule, but has removed it from their talk page as a minor edit [60] Also User:Rfortner is close to breaking the Three-revert rule.

    Kmsiever, Mumun 無文andMasalai reported by 207.6.12.137 (Result:no vio)

    Regina Neighbourhoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User-multi error: "Kmsiever" is not a valid project or language code (help)., User-multi error: "Mumun 無文" is not a valid project or language code (help). and User-multi error: "Masalai" is not a valid project or language code (help).: Time reported: 04:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [61]

    User:Grandmaster reported by User:Hajji Piruz (Result:No violation)

    Note: This is a 1rr report, not an ordinary 3rr report

    Grandmaster is on a standard arbcom parole:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Grandmaster_placed_on_revert_parole

    He can only make one revert per article per week. However, on the Mihranids article, he made two reverts within a two day period.

    Mihranids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see above, Grandmaster has made two reverts in less than a one week period on the same article, therefore violating his parole.Hajji Piruz 05:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Take this issue to arbitration enforcement. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the edit reverts listed above are different. So it's not quite clear whether this would constitute a 1RR violation. Atabek 07:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First one is not a revert. You cannot seriously consider addition of a couple of spaces a revert. It is ridiculous. The text was not reverted to any previous version. False report. Grandmaster 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:HanzoHattori reported by User:Lft6771 (Result:12h)

    Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sandpiper reported by User:Folken_de_Fanel (Result:)

    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Folken_de_Fanel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please provide diffs rather than oldids. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, copy/pasted the wrong thing, it's all right now. Folken de Fanel 19:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was rather hoping the middle two count as one revert taken in two stages for ease of editing, as per Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule. Similarly, I also made another revert shortly after the last one mentioned by Folken,09:28, 12 June 2007 which is also within the time period (5 minutes after, Folken is in a different time zone?). Otherwise complex reverts just get ridiculous when trying to allow for other amenments to a busy page. Sandpiper 20:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A new technique to game the 3RR ? Do you think breaking your reverts into various parts make the acts, and intentions behind it more acceptable ? Each time you've reverted my own version, re-adding each time the same content, which is entirely different than making segmented edits which are each time different and left to the care of other users afterwards.Folken de Fanel 21:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm afraid you are reverting my edits faster than I can make them. Are you watching my edits all the time? I didn't even realise you had changed back what I had written before I did the next bit. I see the piece I reinserted in 3 was one you took out here [69].
            • And I'm afraid you're just revert warring, reinserting each time content that you claim you've not noticed I'd reverted. Are you claiming you've some kind of supernatural powers, allowing you to mystically revert my edits without realizing it ? You should have looked a bit at your edits before coming up with excuses like "I didn't know". Of course you knew, since each one of your edits was an consious attempt to destroy my edits. Folken de Fanel 09:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:207.6.12.137 reported by User:Mumun_man (Result:24h)

    Regina neighbourhoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.6.12.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mazarin07 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: Article protected)

    Jewish lobby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mazarin07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Texastechfan reported by User:aznismyname2367 (Result:)

    WFAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Texastechfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Aznismyname2367 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Have communicated with this user about a similar occasion before. User seems not to research before making edits. Keeps deleting: "Darla Miles: General Assignment Reporter." (5 times in 24 hours).


    Admin: Correct Diffs Actually, in the past 24 hours

    Aznismyname2367 has reverted the material into the article 4 times. (5 times going back beyond 24 hours).

    And Texastechfan has reverted the material out of the article 3 times. (4 times going back beyond 24 hours.)

    Aznismyname2367 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) clearly violated 4RR in 24 hours.

    Texastechfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has 3 reverts in 24 but is also edit warring.

    I am not an admin: Clearly both editors are edit warring over this material. Both appear to be new editors and neither have warnings on their talk pages. Lsi john 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see anything on the talk page of the article regarding this disputed content either, but there does appear to be a primary source available for an argument allowing it [75]. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 18:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:SqueakBox reported by User:Vintagekits (Result:Warned both)

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam (2nd nomination) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Mabel Fitzwilliam (2nd nomination)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor knows WP:3RR quite well and has been blocked for 3RR and edit warring in the past. This occurrence is an AfD - the "offending" comment that this editor is removing is in relation to his motives for !voting on the AfD. He believes he can remove it because it is a personal attack. Firstly there is no personal attack and secondly as the comment is not libellous his claim that he has immunity from WP:3RR is incorrect. I had warned the editor in my edit summaries that he was about to breach WP:3RR if he reverted again. Then he stated here that he was immune and didn’t care. I'll say no more.--Vintagekits 19:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This was a removal of a personal attack by Vintagekits (talk · contribs) implying bad faith motives on my part for daring to vote in an afd in which he takes an interest. PA's are not subject to 3rr but perhaps an admin would like to examine Vintagekits behaviour attacking me for no reason. before attacking me ont he afds he left this message on my talk page calling me pathetic so IMO I am perfectly entitled to assume he was trolling and to remove his offensive comments, SqueakBox 19:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this was a personal attack - which is wasnt, you admitted that on your talk page - that does not give you the right to overrule WP:3RR. Maybe you should have heeded the warnings I gave you (and blocks you have had before) and read the exceptions page.--Vintagekits 19:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Same again here.--Vintagekits 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    PA's arent subject to 3rr, and that isnt to mention your disgraceful attempt to get the closing admin to ignore my afd comments. This is as clear a case of trolling as I have seen including this 3rr report, ie Vintage wants to waste my time and everyone else's when we could and should be trying to make a better encyclopedia, SqueakBox 19:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read the exceptions page? Where was the personal attack on the AfD's? That is my last word on this issue. I will let the admin see through your smokescreen.--Vintagekits 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your moptive for troling me in this way. All I do is vote on 2 afd's and get this level of harrassment, SqueakBox 19:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:12.40.180.17 reported by User:Knverma (Result: 24 hrs)

    Quixtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 12.40.180.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The following sentence is being repeatedly moved from the intro to elsewhere:

    Some aspects of the company and its connected distributor organizations have been controversial, in particular the sale of "Business Support Materials" (books, recordings, and the like) to distributors.
    24 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chrisjj reported by User:Jehochman (Result:no vio)

    Wi-Fi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chrisjj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [76]

    We are concerned with this WP:OR and WP:WEASEL statement: Concern has been expressed about possible health risks from Wi-Fi, but scientific studies suggest this is unlikely.

    Admin, I hope you won't block the other user. What we need is guidance and a statement that 3RR isn't an entitlement to do 2-3 reverts per day endlessly. Jehochman Talk 01:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd recommend taking it to AN/I since it's not a 3RR vio. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Fourdee (Result:no vio)

    The Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    SlimVirgin again engaging in edit-warring. Second report ([77]) in a short period - pattern of gaming 3RR and pushing past its limits. These rules should apply to admins as well as anyone else and these are clear reverts ("in whole or in part"). User unwilling to engage in discussion on talk page, repeatedly threatens administrative action for "dirsuption" over obvious content/policy dispute, praises[78] personal attacks by her friends, etc. etc. Are admins immune to 3RR violations and other rules?

    I really am trying desperately hard to work with her and resolve these issues on the talk page but am meeting a brick wall. I took a cooling off period and came back a few days later only to be met with the same reversion of my additions to the article within minutes. I feel very bad about the animosity that has arisen, would like to find some solution, however this persistent edit warring needs to be addressed in and of itself.

    • 1st revert: [79] reverts my removal of what everyone agrees is uncited (improperly cited) material without comment - scroll down for line 52, at line 19 is merely a contested term ([80])
    • 2nd revert: [81] reverts my addition of relevant cited material without comment ([82])
    • 3rd revert: [83] partially reverts my addition of cited statements over previously disputed term "eradication" and removes "extirpation" contrary to citation ([84])
    • 4th revert: [85] reverts addition of cited quote and in summary orders me not to add quotes or "counter-claims"(!!!) or modify article lead-in ([86])

    All of those are "undoing the actions of another editor" "in whole or in part". She knows what 3RR is and does not hesitate to apply it to other editors. Fourdee 08:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you kidding me? SlimVirgin was removing hate-speech. Why were you adding random quotes of Adolf Hitler to the article? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a curious notion of hate-speech. Those edits stand on their own. At any rate a dispute over content is no justification for 3RR violations. Fourdee 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering why you are singling out User:SlimVirgin? Not to imply anyone is right or wrong but a quick glance at the article's history shows that she isn't the only one reverting there. Anynobody 09:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The other editor reverting today caught himself on the 4th and reverted himself. Fourdee 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The third one doesn't look like a revert, and the previous 3RR report was invalid, so doesn't really add anything to this one. ElinorD (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The third one "undoes the actions of another editor" "in whole or in part" - that is a revert by the 3RR. The previous 3RR report shows a pattern of the same edit-warring so it is relevant. This one is about as cut and dry of a case as there could be. Fourdee 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, third one isn't a revert, at least not clearly. SlimVirgin would still do well to revert less often, I think, since 3RR is not an entitlement to three reverts a day. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Str1977 reported by User:Benjiboi (Result:no vio)

    Rosie O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Str1977 has a strong belief that the subject of the article is anti-Catholic and has been re-adding previously discussed and removed section ignoring and reversing edits. Since there was heightened emotions I tried carefully to reason with user and spell out what needed to chnage in the edits and why others had issues to to material being added. I'm not sure the best response but since they just reverted everything back agin I want to avoid edit warring myself. I'm afraid some official intervention seems to be needed - sorry! Benjiboi 10:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Spartakk reported by User:east718 (Result:24h for both)

    Fedor Emelianenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Spartakk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Spartakk has been removing information about the nationality of the living subject, and adding in unreferenced pseudonyms despite warnings. Has also been making personal attacks and refuses to discuss civilly on talk. [90] [91] east.718 10:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Good_friend100 reported by User:LactoseTI (Result:1 week)

    Goguryeo-China wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Good_friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Editor has been blocked repeatedly for 3RR in the past few weeks on similar articles. Several reports above illustate further edit warring behavior.
      • Not convinced the third revert really counts: it reverts an edit from several days ago, and can be seen as consecutive with the immediately previous revert, even though there's an edit in between. But, given how the editor has been blocked three times in the last month for 3RR vios and has been reported for near-vios several times since; I'd say it's time for a block for edit warring, regardless of whether there's a technical vio. One week. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lft6771 reported by User:The Evil Spartan (Result:)

    Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lft6771 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Rollosmokes reported by User:Fightingirish (Result:no vio)

    KMSP-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rollosmokes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [96]
    • I attempted to slightly rewrite, clarify and correct this article, only to see this user revert. I tried to compromise, but was met with a rude response. I do not want to engage in an edit war, and have offered a compromise solution, but this user is not agreeable. I hope this will settle things once and for all.--Fightingirish 18:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only three reverts given; need more than three for 3RR vio. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.253.143.25 reported by User:Nescio (Result:semi-protected)

    Movement to impeach George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.253.143.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I made the first IP aware of WP:RS in this edit[106] after which the identical edit was made by changing IP's. To me this suggests user is alternating IP-address to circumvent 3RR. Since he keeps changing maybe a semi-protect is a better solution. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Str1977 reported by User:Benjiboi (Result: 24 hrs)

    Rosie O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user seems intent on pushing POV that article's subject is anti-Catholic without appropriate references and has deleted work from other editors who tried to include the verifiable parts in question. Seems like it's all or nothing and very disruptive. First encouraged user to use talk page (rather than just edit warring) and reasoned dialog seems to be getting nowhere. My goal is a better article, user's goal seems otherwise.


    • 1st revert: 07:35, 12 June 2007[107]
    • 2nd revert: 23:32, 12 June 2007[108]
    • 3rd revert: 07:31, 13 June 2007[109]
    • 4th revert: 09:34, 13 June 2007[110]
    • 5th revert: 19:30, 13 June 2007[111]
    I think I replace with the needed Diffs instead of oldids, thank you for your help
    I would appreciate other admins' opinions on this block, as some of the edits are not exact reverts. Seems warranted, but a second opinion would be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1, 2, 4 are all removing the supreme court paragraph and inserting the section on anti-Catholicism. 3 is removal of the paragraph only; 5 isn't reverting anything. As the Version reverted to was not filled in, 1 must count as that version. This still leaves 2, 3, 4 for removal of the supreme court paragraph for 3 reverts, and two reverts on adding the Catholic section. Valid block for edit warring; as "3RR is not an entitlement" or however its phrased. Was there a "version reverted to prior to this? (checking myself, brb) KillerChihuahua?!? 22:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, the previous version which had the same edits was 00:04, 12 June 2007 as well as I can determine. Can someone else verify that? Adding diff where it was removed here KillerChihuahua?!? 23:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And my final post for this, unless there are questions for me, specifically: the old version reverted to had the Catholic section, but also had the supreme court paragraph. In other words, he's gone 3 reverts on the Catholic section, and 3 reverts on the supreme court paragraph, which is SFAICT not technically violating 3RR, but he's been around long enough to know that he's edit warring. That's counting awfully close. I would be ok with reversing the block, or with letting it stand. And I would much appreciate someone else checking this, because we now have two findings on this 3RR report, and they do not agree. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, my brain finally did math. Apologies for the spam. Neither is 3RR, due to the time difference (and DO check my math on the time, please.) KillerChihuahua?!? 23:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not be in a position to take any administrative action with regard to Str1977, as he is a personal friend. However, having stated that, I'd like to point out that the first revert is completely outside the 24-hour period. The fifth revert doesn't seem to be a revert at all, but even if it were, it's worth noting that it's the very next edit after the fourth revert; nobody had edited in between. Therefore, he could have done the two edits in one go, by doing a full page edit instead of two separate sections. It is standard practice not to count consecutive edits as separate reverts, even if they are both technically reverts. So what we have is three reverts within a 24-hour period. It is also worth noting that in the same period, he made eighteen edits to the talk page. Some were just modifications rather than new posts, but there were about fifteen individual posts — more than came from Benjiboi, who has also been reverting. I would suggest an unblock, but I admit that it's a suggestion coming from a friend of the blocked user, rather than a neutral review from an uninvolved administrator. Musical Linguist 23:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Entre-Nos reported by User:Jbmurray (Result: User warned)

    List of Puerto Ricans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Entre-Nos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Only three reverts, but user refuses to enter into discussion on talk page, despite many pleas (see discussion at User_talk:Jbmurray and User_talk:Entre-Nos for instance), and despite the fact that this policy for the list is now explicitly featured on the page. (See the previous version.) There has been much effort to engage this user in discussion, and now he's trying everyone's patience with his continued reverts. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DavidRFLA reported by User:Pats1 (Result:Rejected)

    Tampa Bay Buccaneers Depth Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DavidRFLA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has ignored an explanation on his or her talk page and a 3RR warning.

    Rejected as malformed report. Please show diffs for the reverts, and sign your posts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I fix the report or post it again? Pats1 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the user persists, sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RookZERO 6RR and vandalism reported by COFS (Result: 48 hrs)

    RookZERO slightly vandalized and then 6RRed a section of the Church of Scientology article over the founded consensus of at least six other editors, within some minutes.

    1. Revert, 13 June, 20:42

    2. Revert, 13. June, 20:50

    3. Revert, 13 June, 21:01

    4. Revert, 13 June, 21:25

    5. Revert, 13 June, 21:32

    6. Revert, 13 June, 21:42

    He has been reverted back by myself, Speed Air Man, Slightlyright and Su-Jada and got cross with Wikihermit as well.

    I remember RookZERO from some months ago as a vandalising editor. If those diffs are needed please let me know. COFS 21:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:DavidRFLA reported by User:Pats1 (Result:24h)

    Tampa Bay Buccaneers Depth Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DAVIDRFLA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Links fixed this time (prior rejected). Pats1 22:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has ignored explanations to the redirect in his talk page. His latest response to my explanation was "Tell me, who made WP:NOR the god to decide who puts what on Winipedia. Take a walk. Your a typical commie from Mass. Why can you not just mind your own business. Is that impossible for a person of your makeup. If I want to put up a depth chart, who the heck are you or anyone else to tell me I can not do it. Get a life Nazi." Pats1 22:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Insert new report here

    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]

<!-- 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
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to -->
* 1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
* 4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!--
- * Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued _before_ the last reported reversion.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
-->

==Insert new report here==
<!-- copy from _above_ this line -->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=138016238"