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
→‎Example: create ... sadly
Line 585: Line 585:
: '''Case closed.''' [[User:Ellomate|Ellomate]] ([[User talk:Ellomate|talk]]) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
: '''Case closed.''' [[User:Ellomate|Ellomate]] ([[User talk:Ellomate|talk]]) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
*Both editors were unblocked --[[User:Matilda|Matilda]] <sup>[[User_talk:Matilda|talk]]</sup> 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
*Both editors were unblocked --[[User:Matilda|Matilda]] <sup>[[User_talk:Matilda|talk]]</sup> 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Collectonia]] reported by [[User:Abtract]] (Result: ) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Wikipedia:Reliable souces}}. {{3RRV|Collectonia}}: Time reported: 01:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

*Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources&oldid=213791684]

*1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&dihttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%] 22.54, 20 May 2008
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&dif] 00:09, 21 May 2008
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=213832326&oldid=213830061] 00:09, 21 May 2008
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=213833451&oldid=213833032] 00:14, 21 May 2008

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=213833032&oldid=213832326] ... she is a highly experienced editor who should know better and does not need a warning, but I warned her anyway in this edit summary.





== Example ==
== Example ==

Revision as of 01:20, 21 May 2008

Template:Moveprotected

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

    Click here to create a new report

    Violations

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


    User:Bluegoblin7 reported by User:Trees Rock (Result:no violation)


    • 1st revert: [1]
    • 2nd revert: [2]
    • 3rd revert: [3]
    • 4th revert: [4]
    My reasons are all in my edit sumamries. I did mention a WP:3O. I think this is nonsense, as the redirect itself has been csd'd. Also, as they are shortcuts, should they not be short? The one that Trees Rock (or is it Save the humans or iwilleditu?!?! I'm confused.) added that I reverted was longer than all the current ones, and it is a little used shorcut - see Special:PrefixIndex/WPP:. Thanks, BG7 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One WPP: Is a accepted shortcut. Second Your Shortcuts WP:WPS and WP:SWP are more uncommon. Third That comment you made about my username is uncalled for and is a personal attack. Trees Rock Plant A Tree! 21:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Forth of all I Have Just noticed WP:WPS don't redirect to the wikiproject. Trees Rock Plant A Tree! 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    5th of all when did you mention WP:3O. Trees Rock Plant A Tree! 21:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation It takes four reverts to violate 3RR. Neither editor has made more than three. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait I Found Another one. [5] Trees Rock Plant A Tree! 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation The first revert was on the 12th. 3RR violations occur in a 24-hour period. Metros (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fdgdf3 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Already blocked 24 hours)

    I suspect that Fdgdf3 is a sockpuppet of Knowhands enjoykeep, who has previously been blocked twice for 3RR breaches and once for edit warring using his IP address in the past week. A checkuser has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Knowhands enjoykeep. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked 24 hours by User:AlistairMcMillan. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Knowhands enjoykeep. The question remaining is whether the block on Fdgdf3 should be extended due to the apparent sockpuppetry. Knowhands is already blocked indefinitely after multiple 3RR violations. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Commodore Sloat reported by User:Kelly (Result:24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [6]


    Whilst not by the book a 3RR violation, CS was clearly gaming that by reverting 5 times in 25 hours. Therefore I've blocked him for 24 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.234.162.94 reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: Already blocked )


    • The reverts are over whether two characters are main or supporting. I think sockpuppetry may be involved, since different IPs are doing the same reversion. Btw, first time I've reported something here, so apologies if I've done anything incorrectly. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked Both editors complained about are already blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bobisbob reported by User:DeadlyAssassin (Result: No violation)

    • Previous version reverted to: [17]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [24]

    There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of this article regarding this image. User Bobisbob is edit warring to replace the main image with one of what is described in the image description as his own erect penis. The discussion is around whether that image or one of a diagram is more appropriate at for this part of the article. The argument is NOT one of censorship, but rather which image is most appropriate for this article at this point. It may also be interesting to note that Bobisbob was in favour of a diagram before his own image was uploaded[25].

    User:Kopter reported by User:Hertz1888 (Result: No violation here, blocked for 3RR on Philadelphia)

    • Previous version reverted to: [26]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [31]
    • This editor has reverted the same edit 4 times since 15 May, disregarding two editors' warnings and invitations for discussion. Repeatedly substitutes a drab photo of Boston at night for one we two deem more appealing and appropriate. Not 3 reversions in 24 hours, but definitely a pattern of non-cooperation and disruption that is very frustrating, and degrades the article. Similar pattern of behavior observed on other articles. Would appreciate your help! Hertz1888 (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation here, but I'm blocking for 3RR on Philadelphia. --B (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The_C_of_E reported by User:The_Gnome (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [32]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [37]

    User:The_C_of_E created a "parody" section in the Carefree (chant) entry. The section contains no notable material and gives ground for potential edit and flame wars. It is typical of soccer fans to vandalize and abuse entries in Wikipedia. Allowing "parodies" and similar defamatory or insulting material to enter unchecked into wiki entries only invites trouble - and deterioration of quality. User has been warned and asked to participate in the Discussion, which I started in the entry's Talk page, but to no avail. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Edit warring on Carefree (chant) though no 3RR in any 24-hour period. Unwilling to discuss his changes on the article Talk. Eight reverts to his preferred version altogether. His version lacks sources, its authenticity can't be confirmed, and no other editor supports it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ophois reported by User:Carcharoth (Result: blocked for 48 hours)

    User:Kjngjkn reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Already blocked indef as a sock )

    I suspect that Kjngjkn is a sockpuppet of Knowhands enjoykeep, who has blocked indefinitely for multiple 3RR breaches and blocked once for edit warring using his IP address in the past week. A checkuser has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Knowhands enjoykeep and the SSP report is at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Knowhands enjoykeep. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: User has now been blocked as a sockpuppet[40] so I'm not sure whether I should self-revert this report or leave the report for historical purposes. Notification that the user has been blocked seems the least I should do. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked Indef by User:Blueboy96 as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:144.92.152.82 (Result: Already semi-protected)

    This user is reverting constructive edits and writing inappropriate edit summaries. (Presumably his "issue" with the editing is the removal of a sentence that the Hattic language is related to a Caucasian language group, which his source does not assert - see the article's talk page).

    Note: the reporting anon is a sockpuppet for a banned user (User:Sumerophile) who is not supposed to be editing at all, my reverting of him/her has nothing to do with the content, but is based on policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you demonstrate this claim with evidence? If so, you should have filed a SSP report. - Revolving Bugbear 15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, will do; it's obvious from the editing history anyway, (numerous addition of portals to the top of pages rather than at the bottom or on talkpage, etc.) not to mention the WHOIS location matches... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The location match is a university, where several of us have worked on these pages. Til Eulenspiegel's choice of what to reverse is based on content. Yearssixty (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Already semi-protected. User:PeterSymonds has already semi-protected the article to stop the IP. Peter makes reference to a sock in his protection summary. It is plausible that another editor reverting Hattians, 144.92.95.110 (talk · contribs) is a sock of Sumerophile. I suggest that Til Eulenspiegel open up a WP:SSP report. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The amount of procedure needed to do SSP is too inhibiting to make it worth my time. In aspiring to be magnanimous, I probably wouldn't have even pointed the socks out at all, if they weren't actually trying to get me on this page. After that, I did reopen Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sumerophile; as you can see, doing this only brought out yet more socks protesting that they are really just a group of people at the same location, who all just happen to edit in exactly the same way. I don't have the time, energy or patience to tackle this at SSP right now but if someone else wants to, please do. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Duhman0009 reported by User:Dancter (Result: User warned again )

    (modifying article to express, "The game is scheduled for release May 21, 2008 in North America.")


    Warned It's been about 6 hours since the last revert, so I don't feel that blocking is necessary right now. I've left the user one more note. Hopefully he refrains. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BigDunc reported by User:GDD1000 (Result:No action taken )

    I don't really know how to fill this in, I'm just struggling with trying to cope with the vandalism this user BigDunc is doing at my sand box. He's deleting images which I've asked for assistance on because I don't know how to fill in the copyright syntax properly. I need help.GDD1000 (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 2007


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 2040
    I am enforcing copyright policy with regard to Fair use images in userspace. I have asked him several times not to restore the images per WP:NONFREE and he's just kept on edit warring. My edits are exempt from 3RR. - User:BigDunc
    It should be noted that Dunc has been warned about civility already today.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You are ignoring the fact that I have already asked for assistance on the copyright page. I don't know how to do the syntax and have made errors. You are also conveniently (it would appear) forgetting to tell admins that you are locked into a long and bitter edit war against me at Ulster Defence Regiment since the day I joined Wikipedia as a member.GDD1000 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As an admin, I decided to take no action with this. I cautioned both parties on the ANI. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Boxed up lengthy discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    What is the ANI? Is this editor going to be continually allowed to cause me grief this way?GDD1000 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    GDD1000, there is a set of rules as to where Fair Use images can be used in the encyclopedia. Logos, such as this regimental logo, are usually Fair Use images and are not freely-licensed. We are not supposed to have any Fair Use images in user space. Your sandbox is in your user space. To satisfy the most exact interpretation of policy, it has been suggested that the image reference in your draft article be kept enclosed in comment brackets (or preceded by a colon) until the page is moved to main space. That should not inconvenience you very much, and it will save another 10,000 words of policy discussion. By 'ANI' they are referring to this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've said all along that I don't understand the copyright tagging. I feel there was a better way of doing this but when I'm under attack I can only ask for help and hope that I get it. GDD1000 (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We have already ruled that there is no 3RR violation. If you have further concerns, express them at WP:ANI. You've already participated in three different threads there: Wikipedia:ani#Block discussion, Wikipedia:Ani#Ulster_Defence_Regiment and Wikipedia:ani#Fair use images in userspace. Beware of forum shopping. If you know about Arbcom you can't be quite as naive as you appear. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I know about ArbCom because I've come across it and understand how it works. There are still some things I don't understand. I am not trying to be naive and I hate the lack of knowledge I have because it seems to disadvantage me at every turn with this horrible edit war which has been going on since the 1st day I joined this site. I am not however, a fool! Both you and I would be incredibly naive to think that someone who's only been posting here for a matter of weeks will have got his (or her) head around the plethora of complicated procdures which seem to make this site tick. No disrespect intended.GDD1000 (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW, I've never heard of "forum shopping". I'm just doing my best to contribute to articles. I didn't ask for all this nonsense.GDD1000 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's when an editor goes around the project like this and this and when you have made reports here on ANI a number of times and then claim not to know what it is. So, claiming ignorance and "forum shopping" for support when you know full well what our policies are, can only last so long. So it's a bit like when editors provide you with a policy like WP:V or WP:RS, and you don't like it, you go around the project looking to have them blocked. --Domer48 (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, so now I understand but you have to understand that I've felt backed into a corner. That's why I've sought help. If you took the time to discuss things like this with me all the time then we wouldn't be having these issues. Can we see this co-operation on the UDR page now please?GDD1000 (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    But I have, a number of times, and you just ignore the advice. I've explained the policies, and pointed you to them and you ignored them. Now you find your way around quite well when it suits you, so next time your here, or any other of the forums, ignorance will not be used as an excuse. --Domer48 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a cotton pickin minute there. I have found my way round since day one. I've had to, otherwise you and your muckers would have run rings around me. Your problem was, and is, that you thought I just wanted to disrupt something for you. That was never my intention. If I gave that impression through inexperience then I apologise, as I have done before. Don't be thinking though that because I've been able to interpret SOME of the conventions on this site that I've become an expert overnight - I haven't. I'm just able to do some of the things I need to do. Now; as I've said to Dunc, you don't appear to be the slightest bit bothered about what I've done elsewhere. It's only the Ulster Defence Regiment article which has got up your nose. May I suggest, now that you perhaps realise I am not the rabid bigot you may have mistaken me for initially, that you assist me in writing the article and then we can all move onto something else. Fair enough?GDD1000 (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.189.145.86 reported by User:64.228.89.235 (Result:Warning given )


    I think this might be vandalism disguised as a valid edit (ie using an apparent source) but the source does not say what it should. Anyway, fairly new and hope this is right and helpful procedure. 64.228.89.235 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shawncorey reported by User:Yamara (Result:stern warning, block possible later)


    User repeatedly removes a cited paragraph, insisting simply that it is "wrong".[41]

    User has also insisted on his talk page, "I'll keep removing it until it it correct." (sic)[42]

    User has been warned by an admin re WP:NPA. -Yamara ✉ 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A 6th edit by the user removed the half of the paragraph with the citation: 23:26, 18 May 2008 - While not a revert, he seems insistent to edit war with numerous other editors. He has reiterated, on his talk page, his intent to continue personal attacks at his discretion, despite a warning by an admin. -Yamara ✉ 00:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In the future, please use diffs rather than oldids (i.e., links that show the changes made by the editor).
    Fortunately, this one was pretty easy to tell just from the history of the article. It seems to me that Shawncorey has not technically violated 3RR, as no four reverts fall into 24 hours; however, he is gaming the system by reverting three times within 24 hours. I could block for this, but I think instead I'll just issue a stern warning that reverting more will result in a block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brian Boru is awesome and User:70.172.219.97 reported by User:69.182.79.163 (Result: 24 hours Brian Boru and the IP 70.172 )

    • Previous version reverted to: [43]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME User has reverted to sockpuppetry to avoid 3RR
    • Comments

    This is just 1 of 3 instances where User:Brian Boru is awesome‎ decided to WP:Stalk my edits and remove my comments from editors whose cut/paste moves I've had corrected in the past few months. These were legit notices and I'm curious as to why a random editor is deleting my comments. After repeated notices to stop deleting comments in edit summaries and on the users talk page the IP began removing the comments. The IP has only been used in instances where the same user was involved in edit disputes. It also looks as if this editor has also removed many disrutived editing notices from their own talk page as well.

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both Brian Boru is awesome and the IP 70.172. This 3RR report takes it on faith that the IP and Brian Boru are working together, but it's otherwise hard to explain why:
    • Brian B. would take such an interest in removing notices of cut-and-paste moves from other people's talk pages (an unusual activity in its own right, besides being a violation of WP:TALK), and
    • An IP 70.172 would arrive out of the middle of nowhere to continue that exact pattern of reverts.
    I was curious whether the other IP, the one making this report, was an editor in good standing, but I notice that here Anthony Appleyard made one of the cut-paste move repairs requested by the IP, so he's probably legit. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JJJ999/User:122.148.218.27 reported by V-train (talk) (Result: 24 hour block)

    Asian Universities Debating Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JJJ999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    also 122.148.218.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 12:31, 18 May 2008

    1. 15:03, 18 May 2008
    2. 03:25, 19 May 2008
    3. 07:16, 19 May 2008
    4. 07:31, 19 May 2008
    • Diff of warning: here

    Half of above edits were done as IP edits. This diff [44] shows they are the same user. The information being added is also a violation of BLP, as the source is a forum post and clearly questionable. —V-train (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is laughable to suggest this is a violation of 3R. I have been preventing the removal of sourced content without consensus, not the other way around. Anyway, it's now up to an AfD.JJJ999 (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This editor actually warned me about 3RR yesterday (see here), even though I had not reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours. Ongoing content dispute regarding this article is being discussed at Talk:Asian Universities Debating Championship. So far this editor is the only one advocating adding in content that is from a questionable source, and keeps reverting other editors with sharply worded edit summaries. Singopo (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Both user and UIP address blocked. The diffs show addition of content unsupported by a reliable source and in violation of WP:BLP as per the talk page discussion. Discussion on the talk page does not support this editor's view of including the material. The diffs are quite clearly within the 24 hour framework.--Matilda talk 23:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gouryella reported by User:Haza-w (Result: blocked 24 hours )

    A little bird tells me that 66.121.127.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was the IP of the editor before this username was registered, which would make this the first revert. In any case, user has made four reversions to Paul van Dyk, and was warned after two, with no response to discussion on talk page. The final reversion actually took place slightly outside the 24 hour window, but there is a case for bending the rule here, since the user has been previously warned for edit-warring and repeatedly re-uploading deleted images. haz (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Edit warring on Paul van Dyk --Matilda talk 23:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TeePee-20.7 reported by User:Bidgee (Result: blocked for 1 week)


    User is edit warring, uncivil, not assuming good faith and ownership of the article. Bidgee (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also this may require looking closely because some formatting changes occurred during the edit warring, but the demographic text in question that he reverted back to repeatedly is very clearly TeePee's favorite version and not what had been decided by consensus on the talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – blocked for 1 week by Blnguyen for a number of issues including edit warring

    --Matilda talk 07:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 48 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: varies, described below
    Boodlesthecat seems to have straightforwardly violated 3RR on the article. I notice there is a report open at WP:BLPN about this article, but I think it is about remarks being made on the Talk page. Before we close this, does anyone see a justification under WP:BLP for the edits made by either side? Mostly I see entire ethnicities or national groups being possibly criticized. My guess is that unless a specific individual is defamed, that is not BLP. But let's have a chance for anyone to comment on the relevance of BLP if they wish.
    Nobody has filed a 3RR about the behavior on the article's Talk page, so that issue is for other noticeboards to assess if they wish. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see anything approaching a 3RR violation. User:Piotrus is involved in a content dispute on this article, see here and here. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Since Boodles is not offering a BLP defence, I think this is a straightforward 3RR case, with four reverts within 24 hours as listed above, and no other editor coming anywhere near four reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Abtract reported by User:Collectonian (Result: Warned)

    Abtract, who has a long history of unpunished edit warring, has violated 3RR on the YuYu Hakusho article. He disruptively added a ton of {{citation}} tags to the article headers, was reverted, put them back, was reverted again, then put them back moved to the end of every paragraph. He also called several undoing of his disruptive tagging as being vandalism. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment by User:Abtract. First technicalities: The supposed first revert was in fact my original insertion of tags not a revert. The second supposed revert was another attempt to put the tags on but in a different place as advised by Collectonian on my talk page (thinly disguised as a "welcome") so I can't see why she is objecting now (well I suppose I can because she is trying to build a case) this also was not a revert. The 3rd, 4th and 5th are indeed reverts. The supposed 6th is not even an edit so I'm not sure what it is but it certainly isn't a revert. Total three reverts not 4 and certainly not 6. Having said that, three reverts is hardly praisworthy, I admit. My reason is that I was reverting User:Sesshomaru following their reversion of my quite legitimate insertion of fact tags (several I admit but the article is in a bit of a state citationwise) ... we each reverted three times ... I put the tags in they removed them. My insertion of the tags was simply doing what the tags were designed for (pointing to unreferenced material which for all I know may be incorred at worst, or original research at best) whereas (IMHO) removing these tags after just telling me "Feel free and remove whatever sections violate policy", was deliberate vandalism. I would like you also to note that I have opened a thread for discussion on the article talk page but neither Collonian nor Sess have been courteous enough to reply, being content to issue warnings on my talk page no doubt. Abtract (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I didn't advice you to place them anywhere else, I warned you for removing them (and it wasn't thinly disguised as anything, it was the standard 1st level warning template). You have done 6 reverts. Doing them section by section and moving the tag around does not change that, nor does your tagging these sections out of retaliation for your disagreement with Sess over the article content. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Warned Not so interested in the technicalities offered in Abtract's note. As far as I can see other users are objecting to Undid disruptive use of citation tags, not every single little sentence needs to be cited as per at least one edit summary undoing Abtract's edits. Happy to leave this incident as a warning. Please don't persist with this behaviour.--Matilda talk 01:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I accept what you say. Abtract (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kossack4Truth reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Result: blocked 24 hours)

    [...etc...]

    I think User:FoveanAuthor is also a sockpuppet of this user, which would contribute further reverts to the list:

    Continual restoration (and expansion) of removed-by-consensus long discussion of Rev. Wright from Barack Obama (and deletion of summary-style link to dedicated article). Some edits also add a rant from National Review and/or some unneeded material on alleged association with Bill Ayers.

    Clarification: I think Kossack4Truth may have been careful enough to technically avoid the letter of 3RR (assuming FoveanAuthor is just another editor with the same interest in the same articles). S/h has probably spaced reversions at just under 3/24h. But this barely-rule-meeting pattern has gone on for a number of days, the Kossack4Truth has ignored the consensus on the talk page, and essentially stated his/her intention to keep doing so forever. 3 reversions per 24 hours is not a right, and his/her edits clearly violate the spirit of the rule. LotLE×talk 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dereks1x has been unusually active lately, and this was one of his favorite targets. It might be worth a checkuser here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The listed reverts by User:Kossack4Truth span more than a 24-hour period. I recommend that the submitter clarify the claim to say if you think it's a conventional 3RR violation, or is a more general type of edit-warring. If you think User:Fovean Author is a sockpuppet of Kossack4truth some evidence would be good. (Fovean Author is the older of the two accounts). If you think you have enough to justify a checkuser, go ahead and submit the request there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brando130 reported by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim (Result: page protected)

    1. 01:21, 20 May 2008
    2. 02:07, 20 May 2008
    3. 16:19, 20 May 2008
    4. 16:23, 20 May 2008
    5. 16:34, 20 May 2008
    • User has been around for two years, and knows the rule well enough. 4 of the reverts relate to a date and one to some tags, totally 5 reverts. I myself and another user have also had a couple of reverts, which (esp. as an admin) I shouldn't really have done, but edits being forced are serious errors which contradict the text as well as another Featured Article and user was conducting himself in a tendentious manner, such as leaving edit summaries like "stop just edit warring" while reverting and opening talk page comments with statements like "You're pretty dense, bubs." Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Brando130 has violated 3RR and Deacon of Pdnapetzim missed violating it by about 45 minutes. Blocking both would be justifiable, but I've protected the page instead. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wfgh66 reported by User:Wednesday Next (Result: both editors blocked for 24 hours but subsequently unblocked)


    Check on User:Wednesday Next who also broke the 3RR on Berenger Sauniere and is the only Wikipedia Editor who demands copious references on Priory of Sion and Rennes-le-Chateau matters but not to any other subject matters on Wikipedia. He visits Wikipedia with the sole intention of targetting those subject matters (Priory of Sion, Rennes-le-Chateau, Berenger Sauniere, Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown, etc). His ignorance of the subject matter is quite shocking. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    None of the above is true. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rest assured that I will not be providing footnotes to the Berenger Sauniere article for the amusement of Wednesday Next, who is the only editor who demands copious footnotes; it's high time that Wednesday Next started reading real history as opposed to fake history.Wfgh66 (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Although I'm not the admin, I will give my say). Wfgh66, you yourself have broken the rule. 3 reverts is the MAX, not the I'm reporting time. Although you may not like it, I suggest that you revert your own revision to the previous. Although this may not lower your chance of getting blocked, it may teach you a lesson, a case in which requires no block. Ellomate (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Matilda talk 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Case closed. Ellomate (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Collectonia reported by User:Abtract (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [51]
    • 1st revert: [52] 22.54, 20 May 2008
    • 2nd revert: [53] 00:09, 21 May 2008
    • 3rd revert: [54] 00:09, 21 May 2008
    • 4th revert: [55] 00:14, 21 May 2008
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [56] ... she is a highly experienced editor who should know better and does not need a warning, but I warned her anyway in this edit summary.



    Example

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

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

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

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

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

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

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

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

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

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=213847015"