Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions
→Example: Report Traditional loyalist |
|||
Line 587: | Line 587: | ||
*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimintheatl&diff=204936150&oldid=204925020 2008-04-11T08:32:08] |
*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimintheatl&diff=204936150&oldid=204925020 2008-04-11T08:32:08] |
||
== [[User:Traditional unionist]] reported by [[User:86.175.64.136]] (Result: ) == |
|||
*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|Corporals killings}}. {{3RRV|Traditional unionist}}: Time reported: 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corporals_killings&oldid=213681695 11:38, 20 May 2008] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corporals_killings&oldid=213729929 16:30, 20 May 2008] |
|||
<!--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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corporals_killings&diff=213690105&oldid=213689390 12:43, 20 May 2008] |
|||
*2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corporals_killings&diff=213693985&oldid=213693230 13:10, 20 May 2008] |
|||
*3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corporals_killings&diff=213927730&oldid=213731708 11:40, 21 May 2008] |
|||
*4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corporals_killings&diff=213930039&oldid=213929857 11:58, 21 May 2008] |
|||
This editor has a long history of edit warring. [[Special:Contributions/86.175.64.136|86.175.64.136]] ([[User talk:86.175.64.136|talk]]) 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Example == |
== Example == |
Revision as of 12:07, 21 May 2008
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard | ||
---|---|---|
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
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.
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.
| ||
Violations
- Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.
User:71.234.162.94 reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: Already blocked )
- Three-revert rule violation on Supernatural (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.234.162.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ophois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 01:57, May 17, 2008
- 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)
Already blocked Both editors complained about are already blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Bobisbob reported by User:DeadlyAssassin (Result: No violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on Penis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bobisbob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [5]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [12]
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[13].
- No violation - reverts were outside of the 24 hour fence. --B (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Kopter reported by User:Hertz1888 (Result: No violation here, blocked for 3RR on Philadelphia)
- Three-revert rule violation on Boston, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kopter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Hertz1888 (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [14]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [19]
- 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)
- No violation here, but I'm blocking for 3RR on Philadelphia. --B (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
User:The_C_of_E reported by User:The_Gnome (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Carefree (chant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The_C_of_E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [20]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [25]
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)
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)
User:Ophois reported by User:Carcharoth (Result: blocked for 48 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Supernatural (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ophois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 05:46, 17 May 2008
- 1st revert: 05:57, 17 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 09:02, 17 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 20:48, 17 May 2008
- 4th revert: 21:34, 17 May 2008
- 5th revert: 22:31, 17 May 2008
- 6th revert: 22:33, 17 May 2008
- 7th revert: 22:44, 17 May 2008
- 8th revert: 05:55, 18 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 09:42, 18 May 2008
- Notes: - 71.234.162.94 has already been blocked for 3RR over this, for 24 hours from 00:12, 18 May 2008, by User:C.Fred, who carried out one of the other reverts in the same edit war, see here. Note left for C.Fred here (where it should be noted that Ophois left this note at 22:43, 17 May 2008). It might also be worth looking at these two diffs by User:Bcute12: [26] and [27]. Talk page discussion (since December 2007) is here (permalink to discussion, as of 23:27, 17 May 2008). There was also a previous edit war in January 2008. See the page history for the latest edit war. The edit war from 17-18 May 2008 can be seen here. Note that I became aware of this when reviewing User talk:71.234.162.94, and left the following note here, indicating that I was filing a report here. I wrote the report, warned User:Ophois, then saved the report. Carcharoth (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours. - Revolving Bugbear 14:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Kjngjkn reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Already blocked indef as a sock )
- Three-revert rule violation on Mac OS X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kjngjkn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: AussieLegend (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 19:03, 17 May 2008
- 1st revert: 20:27, 18 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 21:32, 18 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 21:49, 18 May 2008
- 4th revert: 22:53, 18 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 21:50, 18 May 2008
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)
Update: User has now been blocked as a sockpuppet[28] 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)
Already blocked Indef by User:Blueboy96 as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:144.92.152.82 (Result: Already semi-protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on Hattians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 06:40, 24 April 2008
- 1st revert: 12:25, 17 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 02:38, 18 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 12:29, 18 May 2008
- 4th revert: 14:41, 18 May 2008
- 5th revert: 15:05, 18 May 2008
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).
- Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME
- 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)
- Can you demonstrate this claim with evidence? If so, you should have filed a SSP report. - Revolving Bugbear 15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
User:Duhman0009 reported by User:Dancter (Result: User warned again )
- Three-revert rule violation on Wii Fit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Duhman0009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 03:17, 17 May 2008
- (modifying article to express, "The game is scheduled for release May 21, 2008 in North America.")
- 1st revert: 13:36, 17 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 16:40, 17 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 17:01, 17 May 2008
- 4th revert: 04:38, 18 May 2008
- 5th revert: 13:49, 18 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 06:01, 18 May 2008
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)
User:BigDunc reported by User:GDD1000 (Result:No action taken )
- Three-revert rule violation on User:GDD1000/UDR (edit | [[Talk:User:GDD1000/UDR|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BigDunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
- Previous version reverted to: 2007
- 1st revert: 2007
- 2nd revert: 2027
- 3rd revert: 2032
- 4th revert: 2042
- 5th revert: 2050
- 6th revert: 2055
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Boxed up lengthy discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
---|
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)
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)
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) 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)
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)
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) |
User:76.189.145.86 reported by User:64.228.89.235 (Result:Warning given )
- Three-revert rule violation on Jim Bob Duggar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 76.189.145.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 20:15, 18 May 2008
- 1st revert: 00:48, 18 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 07:56, 18 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 18:58, 18 May 2008
- 4th revert: 20:08, 18 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 20:17, 18 May 2008
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)
User:Shawncorey reported by User:Yamara (Result:stern warning, block possible later)
- Three-revert rule violation on Time travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shawncorey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 00:55, 17 May 2008
- 1st revert: 01:47, 17 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 04:53, 17 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 04:57, 17 May 2008
- 4th revert: 19:31, 18 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning (On user page, where he responded): 20:54, 18 May 2008
- 5th revert: 22:09, 18 May 2008
User repeatedly removes a cited paragraph, insisting simply that it is "wrong".[29]
User has also insisted on his talk page, "I'll keep removing it until it it correct." (sic)[30]
User has been warned by an admin re WP:NPA. -Yamara ✉ 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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 )
- Three-revert rule violation on User talk:Rtkat3. Brian Boru is awesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [31]
- 1st revert: 01:45, 18 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 02:36, 18 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 16:16, 18 May 2008
- 4th revert: 22:28, 18 May 2008
- 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)
User:JJJ999/User:122.148.218.27 reported by V-train (talk) (Result: 24 hour block)
- Three-revert rule violation on
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)
- 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
- Diff of warning: here
Half of above edits were done as IP edits. This diff [32] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
User:Gouryella reported by User:Haza-w (Result: blocked 24 hours )
- Three-revert rule violation on Paul van Dyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gouryella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 18:21, 16 May 2008
- 1st revert: 01:13, 18 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 10:54, 18 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 23:52, 18 May 2008
- 4th revert: 09:34, 19 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 13:57, 18 May 2008
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)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Edit warring on Paul van Dyk --Matilda talk 23:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
User:TeePee-20.7 reported by User:Bidgee (Result: blocked for 1 week)
- Three-revert rule violation on Chilean Australian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TeePee-20.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 15:20, 18 May 2008
- 1st revert: 16:59, 19 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 17:45, 19 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 18:40, 19 May 2008
- 4th revert: 18:56, 19 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 18:48, 19 May 2008
User is edit warring, uncivil, not assuming good faith and ownership of the article. Bidgee (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil user TeePee-20.7. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
--Matilda talk 07:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 48 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: varies, described below
- 1st revert: 02:15, May 19, 2008 (removing reference, reverting to previous version; this ref was removed several times over the previous days - [33], [34])
- 2nd revert: 21:32, May 19, 2008 (removing statement and a link added 40 minutes earlier)
- 3rd revert: 23:09, May 19, 2008 (restores a removed quote)
- 4th revert: 23:22, May 19, 2008 (restores the same quote)
- Diffs of 3RR warning: 22:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC) and previously 18:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC) for edits on Ghetto benches --Matilda talk 00:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
User:Abtract reported by User:Collectonian (Result: Warned)
- Three-revert rule violation on YuYu Hakusho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Abtract (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 16:28, May 19, 2008
- 1st revert: 19:10, May 19, 2008
- 2nd revert: 19:14, May 19, 2008
- 3rd revert: 19:29, May 19, 2008
- 4th revert: 19:32, May 19, 2008
- 5th revert: 19:48, May 19, 2008
- 6th revert: 19:52, May 19, 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 19:15, May 19, 2008 (1st), 19:31, May 19, 2008 (2nd)
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:Sesshomaru. While not technically edit warring, Abtract is still making subsequent edits to the page: [35], [36], [37], [38]. These edits have been reverted all at once, yet he is slowly re-placing them one by one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed I did replace some of them one at a time to give you guys an opportunity to consider them individually and to realise that each one was fully justified ... or are you saying these sections do not require referencing? Abtract (talk) 01:23, 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)
- 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)
Thanks for taking the time to look at this. I accept what you say. Abtract (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Kossack4Truth reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Result: blocked 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 23:09, 12 May 2008
- 1st revert: 12:39, 20 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 04:03, 20 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 22:50, 19 May 2008
- 4th revert: 22:52, 19 May 2008
- 5th revert: 04:28, 18 May 2008
- 6th revert: 02:21, 18 May 2008
[...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)
- 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)
- 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)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring even if not technically 3RR, not within spirit as per LotLE --Matilda talk 17:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Brando130 reported by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim (Result: page protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on Roman Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brando130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to 19:52, May 19, 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)
- 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)
User:Wfgh66 reported by User:Wednesday Next (Result: both editors blocked for 24 hours but subsequently unblocked)
- Three-revert rule violation on Bérenger Saunière (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wfgh66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 22:50, 19 May 2008
- 1st revert: 19:22, 20 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 19:25, 20 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 19:32, 20 May 2008
- 4th revert: 19:49, 20 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 19:28, 20 May 2008
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)
- None of the above is true. Wednesday Next (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Wednesday Next (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: Wfgh66 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- (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)
Please format this report according to the example provided below with diffs. I have included the template elements for you--Matilda talk 20:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours --Matilda talk 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Case closed. Ellomate (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Both editors were unblocked --Matilda talk 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Collectonian reported by User:Abtract (Result: nominating editor blocked for 24 hours )
- Three-revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Reliable sources (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Reliable sources|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Collectonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [39]
- 1st revert: [40] 22.54, 20 May 2008
- 2nd revert: [41] 00:09, 21 May 2008
- 3rd revert: [42] 00:09, 21 May 2008
- 4th revert: [43] 00:14, 21 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: [44] ... 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abtract (talk • contribs)
Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours This is gaming the system after the previous incident above. --Matilda talk 01:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Croctotheface reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Croctotheface (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 17:19, 17 May 2008
- 1st revert: 22:20, 19 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 15:24, 20 May 2008 (reverts to this edit from 10:53, 20 May 2008)
- 3rd revert: 15:56, 20 May 2008
- 4th revert: 17:38, 20 May 2008
- 5th revert: 17:57, 20 May 2008
- 6th revert: 18:33, 20 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 18:22, 20 May 2008
Please note when determining the length of the block that the user made his sixth revert after the warning, and even went so far as to delete the warning without comment. Please also note that the reverts started right after page protection had been lifted and participants were warned for previous edit warring.
- BLP issues are immune to 3RR, csloat. Seriously, quit shopping for a block to try to force your POV into the article, sir. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me? There is quite a bit of dispute about what makes up a BLP issue, but the above certainly isn't one. It's arrogant enough that he simply deleted my warning without comment, but the abuse of Wikipedia policies to further edit-warring behavior is an insult to the whole project. The BLP exception is there for cut and dried cases, not for you to further one side of a content dispute through edit warring. Look, Croc's actions were beyond the pale. For someone who is in the majority already - and flaunting it over and over as an excuse not to deal with the actual arguments on the talk page - to revert six times in 24 hours anyway is seriously abusive. Finally, I encourage you to read WP:AGF; after reading that that you can use my talk page to apologize for the gross insult to my character above, which I will not dignify with a further response. Thanks in advance. csloat (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The continued placement of the slander by yourself and jim is a BLP issue regardless of whether or not you accept it. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me? There is quite a bit of dispute about what makes up a BLP issue, but the above certainly isn't one. It's arrogant enough that he simply deleted my warning without comment, but the abuse of Wikipedia policies to further edit-warring behavior is an insult to the whole project. The BLP exception is there for cut and dried cases, not for you to further one side of a content dispute through edit warring. Look, Croc's actions were beyond the pale. For someone who is in the majority already - and flaunting it over and over as an excuse not to deal with the actual arguments on the talk page - to revert six times in 24 hours anyway is seriously abusive. Finally, I encourage you to read WP:AGF; after reading that that you can use my talk page to apologize for the gross insult to my character above, which I will not dignify with a further response. Thanks in advance. csloat (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Jimintheatl reported by User:Merzbow (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jimintheatl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous versions reverted to:
- 2008-05-17T17:09:34 (for revert 1)
- 2008-05-20T16:31:4 (for reverts 2, 3, 4)
- 1st revert: 2008-05-20T04:54:49
- 2nd revert: 2008-05-20T17:18:12
- 3rd revert: 2008-05-20T17:56:06
- 4th revert: 2008-05-20T18:09:07
- Diff of 3RR warning: 2008-04-11T08:32:08
User:Traditional unionist reported by User:86.175.64.136 (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on Corporals killings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
11:38, 20 May 2008 and 16:30, 20 May 2008
- 1st revert: 12:43, 20 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 13:10, 20 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 11:40, 21 May 2008
- 4th revert: 11:58, 21 May 2008
This editor has a long history of edit warring. 86.175.64.136 (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
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
- Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide
- 3RR report helper tool – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.