Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.73.106.239 (talk) at 19:10, 24 December 2007 (Happyme22). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.
Administrators: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.

    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: Bobby Awasthi reported by User:slatersteven (Result: No violation; Protected)

    Indian Rebellion of 1857 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bobby Awasthi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [Revision as of 21:00, 8 December 2007]


    • 1st revert: [Revision as of 15:08, 9 December 2007]
    • 2nd revert: [Revision as of 15:13, 9 December 2007]
    • 3rd revert: [Revision as of 15:14, 9 December 2007]
    • 4th revert: [Revision as of 15:18, 9 December 2007]
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    A short explanation of the incident.

    Booby is aware of the 3RR rules as he has previously entred into a debat about someone else being baned for this (and has asked why others have not been baned). Moreover he edited more then just four times (about 7 in fact). Many of which are rather insultiing in their reasoning.I never intended to do this but will be unable to edit many of his revisions without violating the rule myslelf Slatersteven (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He has not made a violation. If he makes several edits consecutively (i.e. with no other users in between), those edits only count as one revert. He has thus made only two reverts in the 24-hour period. Because of the dispute, I've protected the page for three days; please discuss the changes with him on the talk page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:64.148.1.113 reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: 24 hours)

    Dan Debicella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.148.1.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Very long edit war without discussion over two unsourced versions of the Dan Debicella. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ratsofftoya reported by User:Someguy1221 (Result: 24 hours)

    Dan Debicella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ratsofftoya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Very long edit war without discussion over two unsourced versions of the Dan Debicella. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Martinphi (Result: No violation)

    Ghost light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]

    This is not a technical 24 hour 3RR violation, but nevertheless deserves action considering the user's block log (and you would have to go see all his sock puppets to get the real effect here), history, and refusal to stop edit warring even after objections were raised on the talk page.


    [2]

    [3]

    Finally does a mergeto:

    [4]

    Redirects saying no objections were made:

    [5]

    [6]

    [7]

    [8]

    [9]

    The user continually edit wars on many articles, but is often clever enough to count. I hope a block will caution him to build consensus. I'm making this report per WP:3RR "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of the edits are ancient. There is no WP:3RR violation here. If you have issues with the editor, the correct venue is a Request for Comments. If you suspect sockpuppetry, request a checkuser. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Plasynins reported by User:Armyguy11 (Result: Stale)

    Parsley Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Plasynins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Armyguy11 (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    22:44, 8 December 2007

    Sockpuppet used to circumvent 3rr violation. RFCU has been filed. [10]. The result was a possible. [11] removal of infobox that was already in discussion. user is new to article and conensus has not been reached. user has a strong history of reverting and undoing the work of others.

    Comment: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Plasynins was opened by this same user. It was closed shortly afterwards. See my comment there about this nonsense, I dont think editing the same page as a person once and a "possible" checkuser result is a reason to block anyone. Yemal (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason this is still open? The page in question was protected days ago and neither user has been active since then. The sockpuppet report was closed, why has this report not been???? Yemal (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It was closed with a possible being the reason. Meaning it wasn't denied that you are in fact engaging in edit warring and are not the same person. As a result you could be still be blocked or at least given a warning for 3rr vandalism. User Playasins hasn't been on and took a "wikibreak" most likely as a result of a sockpuppet account being discovered. Armyguy11 (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:222.144.8.172 reported by User:71.250.205.204 (Result: No action)

    List of tributaries of Imperial China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 222.144.8.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Their tit-for-tat edit warrings are keeping so fast, I couldn't give a warning but another editor already did. I also think Clerkwheelzeon violates the rule together.

    User:Muscovite99 reported by User:Kulikovsky (Result: 24 hours)

    Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Muscovite99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    User:Muscovite99 pushes allegations coming from questionable sources into a biography of a living person. This seems to violate WP:BLP. He has done 4 reverts in less than 2 hours being warned twice about 3RR. Kulikovsky (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. I would suggest that you don't make so many reverts yourself though. You've made three (just under the limit), but the limit of 3 reverts per 24 hours doesn't mean you should use that limit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. Just to explain, it is not that I want to do multiple reverts, but as far as I understand, WP:BLP requires removal of poorly sourced allegations. Whether they are poorly sourced or not I hope we can establish at the discussion page of the article. Thanks again. Kulikovsky (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a brief note: the edit war in this case was actually started by User:Kulikovsky whose actions also amount to censorship and WP:Vandalism. The issue was discussed at the discussion page and Belkovsky's opinion did not enjoy any majority. The allegations are presented as such, not as facts. As those have been made in credible publications by a number of well-known persons, they noteworthy and relevant.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:V-Dash reported by User:MelicansMatkin (Result: No violation)

    User talk:V-Dash (edit | [[Talk:User talk:V-Dash|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). V-Dash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [12]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [18]

    User:V-Dash is currently engaged in an edit war with IP 172.216.161.58. I am unsure whether 3RR covers an edit war on a users talk page, but I thought I should report it just in case. They have reverted each other several times in the last couple of hours. As of this report, V-Dash has reverted after I posted a 3RR warning on his talk page (the warning was posted in between the 4th and 5th revert); IP 172.216.161.58 has also violated 3RR on this talk page after the warning, and that report is filed below. I also feel it prudent to note that V-Dash has been warned multiple times about 3RR, and also been blocked for a 3RR violation in the past. He also has a history of attacking other editors, and sockpuppetry. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User's reverts were on his own talk page, which falls under WP:3RR#Exceptions, "reverts performed by a user within his or her own user page, user subpages, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere". Dreadstar † 05:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:172.216.161.58 reported by User:MelicansMatkin (Result: 24 hours)

    User talk:V-Dash (edit | [[Talk:User talk:V-Dash|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172.216.161.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [19]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [25]

    IP 172.216.161.58 is currently engaged in an edit war with User:V-Dash. I am unsure whether 3RR covers an edit war on a users talk page, but I thought I should report it just in case. They have reverted each other several times in the last couple of hours. As of this report, IP 172.216.161.58 has reverted after I posted a 3RR warning on their talk page (the warning was posted in between the 4th and 5th revert); User:V-Dash has also violated 3RR on this talk page after the warning, and that report is filed above. I also feel it prudent to mention that the IP 172.216.161.58 has currently only made edits to the talk page in question. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikiarrangementeditor reported by User:Daniel J. Leivick (Result: 24 hours)

    Nordschleife fastest lap times‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wikiarrangementeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [26]
    • 1st 3RR warning: [32]
    • 2nd 3RR warning [33]
    • 1st Block for 3RR [34]
    • 3rd 3RR warning [35]

    User Wikiarrangementeditor has a habit of avoiding discusion in his short time on Wikipedia. Based on his grammer and several comments he has made I believe he does not speak English and edits using a web translator. I have tried to discuss his edits on his talk page, but the best I have received in return are poorly phrased dismissals that show a lack of understanding of the policies I have pointed him towards. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GuTTy-YC reported by User:Seicer (Result: 24 hours)

    Panda (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GuTTy-YC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    User persistently edit wars by inserting in uncredible sources and original research. This comment left by Gutty-Yc indicates he plans on continuing. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar edit war at Disculpa los malos pensamientos:
    Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:Zeraeph]] reported by [[Mattisse 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)]] (Result: 1 month)

    Psychopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). [[User:Mattisse 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)|<font color="007FFF">Mattisse 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:Mattisse 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/Mattisse 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/Mattisse 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/Mattisse 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/Mattisse 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)|block user]] · block log): Time reported: 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zeraeph repeatedly reverts my edits on Psychopathy - at first I did not realize what was happening. I tried to discuss it on the talk page. He reported me to ANI. I essentially cannot edit the page. (This is the first time I have reported here so I hope I am doing it right) Mattisse 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • first revert [36]
    • second revert [37]
    • third revert (plus four more) [38]

    [39]

    • fourth revert (plus four more)[40]
    • fifth revert [41]

    [42]

    • sixth revert [43]
    • seventh revert (plus one more) [44]
    • eighth revert [45]
    • ninth revert (plus one more) [46]
    • tenth revert [47]
    • eleventh revert (plus more) [48]

    At first I did not realize what was happening. I tried to discuss on talk page. The other editor reported me to ANI. There I was told to discuss it with User:Zeraeph. I have lost a lot of work. Mattisse 19:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked - 1 month ‎by Mikkalai --slakr\ talk / 07:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sfacets reported by User:Will Beback (Result: 10 days)

    Nirmala Srivastava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sfacets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Many reverts. Experienced user, who was blocked twice last month for 3RR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked - 10 days by Blnguyen. --slakr\ talk / 07:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deadlyfix reported by User:Rocksanddirt (Result:deleted)

    John Candine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Deadlyfix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [49]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    User Deadlyfix is trying to create a future history section and upset that we don't seem to be getting on board with it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - John Candine is CSD-tagged G3/vandalism and reverts were removals of {{db}} tags. I went ahead and notified the user using {{uw-speedy2}}. User also made a personal attack on User talk:Rocksanddirt for which he's now been warned. If editor continues you might consider reporting him has a vandal instead. --slakr\ talk / 07:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the user gave up, after the articles were deleted and the warnings posted. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems pointless to block now that the article has been deleted. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:80.180.11.90 reported by User:Brian0324 (Result: 24 hour block)

    Christianity in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.180.11.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [50]


    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_China&diff=177514796&oldid=177514397

    • 6th revert:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_in_China&diff=177526302&oldid=177523488

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Edit war. IP user is repeatedly deleting cited material. Brian0324 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Already blocked --EoL talk 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kuban kazak reported by User:Hillock65

    Zaporozhian Cossacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kuban kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [55]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: No warnings were issued as this is a seasoned and well known edit warrior with long history of blocks for revert warring [56]

    Sterile edit warring in multiple articles. This user is repeatedly deleting cited material and inserting biased and one-sided statements in articles Zaporozhian Cossacks‎, Ukrainians in Russia‎, Kuban People's Republic. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm rather disinclined to block only Kuban kazak, as both he and the reporter are edit warring (even if the latter hasn't technically violated 3RR). I'd be inclined to block neither or both (and given that both have a history of blocks, the latter seems preferable to me). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Funkynusayri reported by User:Zerida (Result:Funkynusayri blocked for 10 days, Hamada2 blocked for 24 hours)

    Talk:Egyptians (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Egyptians|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Funkynusayri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 11:59

    Started disrupting the article and trolling its talk page with the help of a puppet of a banned user a while back (include trolling my talk page [57]). Has since returned on a regular basis to do the same despite extensive discussion (Archive 2) and lack of consensus for his changes, warnings not to use the article's talk page as a soapbox or engage in repeated tendentious editing [58]. — Zerida 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikignat reported by User:Jdcaust (Result:24h)

    Alan Keyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wikignat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: 14:17


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 14:13

    Back in October, Wikignat blanked a well-sourced, but controversial part of Alan Keyes' article. He was mean-spirited and did not assume good faith on the part of the editors at the time. His points were discussed patiently and a consensus of editors (myself, Dlabtot, and JamesMLane) determined that the information should be inlcluded. Last night, he blanked it again, this time providing sources to "prove" his points. I considered the sources and wrote a compromise. He reverted the compromise. In between, Dlabtot undid his blanking and mentioned that it should be kept. JamesMLane also came by and informed Wikignat he was wrong. Wikignat tried and failed to get the page protected, so he reverted again. I warned him of the 3RR back in October and again today. I also responded to him again on the talk page. Despite this, he reverted for the third time, so I am now reporting him. --20:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Jdcaust (talk)

    User:Spylab reported by User:EliasAlucard (Result: No violation)

    Neo-Nazism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Spylab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spylab has been fanatically obsessed in changing the lead of the Neo-Nazism article into making it appear that neo-Nazism is an ideology, when in reality, the ideology is Nazism (neo-Nazism is the term). This is supported by the sources I've cited, and the sources User:Spylab cites (for some reason, he interprets them in a different way). So Spylab has been engaging himself in constantly reverting the changes made by me and several other users into his own POV. The article has been locked recently over this, and I think it's time to block Spylab as a warning and hopefully he will get the message not to editwar over this. EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation. There has to be four reverts within 24 hours to break 3RR. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On top of that, blocks aren't used punitively or to give someone a message, only to prevent disruption. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:207.195.244.52 reported by User:Lucid6191 (Result: Malformed)

    2003_Fiesta_Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.195.244.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    A user is repeatedly deleting or editing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced, biased statements. It's basically an article about a controversial sports event, and there is an edit war with one side deleting sourced information and replacing it with unsourced hearsay. The user continues to edit after being warned for 3RR. Lucid6191 (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ScienceApologist reported by User:Anthon01 (Result: no violation)

    Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [59]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Editor keeps reverting against consensus. Anthon01 (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation, but there will be other sanctions coming. east.718 at 21:50, December 14, 2007

    User:Bestiege23 reported by User:Burnte (Result: Stale)

    Also reporting myself for getting into it. I had reverted 3 times before I even realized it, so I'm guilty too.

    User:Burnte reported by User:Burnte (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: I'm part of the "war", it's not appropriate for me to revert anymore.


    4chan's domain registrar account ws hacked. I added info from the 4chan status blog about this and some info about the hack. Reverted. I readded it. Reverted. Another person added it. Reverted. I re-aded it, reverted, etc. The argument is that the OWNER'S BLOG is not a reliable source. I fail to see how anyone could be more authoritative than the owner. burnte (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:137.99.117.74 reported by User:Commodore Sloat (Result: No action, user warned by filer)

    Salman Pak facility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 137.99.117.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Anon is inserting disputed text in a blatant attempt to POV-push the article in a completely different direction than the consensus of investigators, journalists, historians, and academics have concluded. He has been asked to stop on the talk page but so far has refused to engage in discussion at all. csloat (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Followup - this anon is also using the userid User:Chudogg; s/he appears to be a new user and has been warned. There is probably no need for a block at this time, although a warning from an admin would be helpful. The editor has posted to the talk page since I wrote the above. csloat (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:207.67.148.57 reported by User:Lucid6191 (Result: 24 hours)

    2003 Fiesta Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 207.67.148.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A user is repeatedly deleting or editing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced, biased statements. It's basically an article about a controversial sports event, and there is an edit war with one person deleting sourced information and replacing it with unsourced hearsay, and most recently, the edits borderline on vandalism. He has been warned on his talk page multiple times by multiple people about 3RR and Vandalism, and has responded with rude comments and more edits. Lucid6191 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr\ talk / 13:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:U is for Unity reported by User:Snapper2 (Result: already blocked)

    Ino Yamanaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). U is for Unity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User continues to create article for minor fictional character despite consensus against it. They are uninterested in discussing the matter, feeling the character's importance within the series is enough to warrant an article. ~SnapperTo 05:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked by Allen3. --slakr\ talk / 14:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.28.6.209 reported by User:Hu12 (Result:Blocked indef.)

    Hyman G. Rickover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.28.6.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:33 15 December 2007 (UTC)

    It's not a 3RR violation if the edits are reverting vandalism. My reverts were merely restoring a link, one since added to the referenced citations, that was lazily being deleted and replaced by a completely irrelevant wikipedia article rather than editing it to be a referenced citation (which I ultimately did). User:Hu12 is being less than honest here. And lazy. --24.28.6.209 (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You continued edit warring/Disruptive editing, despite the discussions, warnings and opposing consensus from editors and/or administrators on the talk page. You chose to continue reverting in pursuit of a certain WP:POINT, rather than discuss.--Hu12 (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "...blocks aren't used punitively or to give someone a message, only to prevent disruption." Huh...I didn't know that. Did you know that, User:Hu12? 'Cuz, you seem to want to indulge in some sort of punishment for my reverting of what you know I took to be vandalism and destruction of information. So if blocking is being inappropriately bureucratic, what is an appropriate punishment for repetitively keeping Wikipedia's articles from being vandalized by dilettantes...being invited to Knol? --24.28.6.209 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Wikipedia's guidelines are generally accepted among editors, such as WP:3RR and is considered a standard that users should follow. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. You engaged in an Wikipedia:Edit war as a way of attempting to win a content dispute. A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition.--Hu12 (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I made the simple effort to fix the article via a referenced citation, while you -- repetitively -- insisted on using a Wikepedia article for reference that effectively had nothing to do with the content of the article. And...who's at fault here? --24.28.6.209 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bksimonb reported by User:Creationcreator (Result:Page Protected)

    BKWSU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NAME_OF_USER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [60]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [65]

    The user is the leader of the organization is question's Internet PR team working in tandem with other BKWSU editors; Appledell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Riveros11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and the banned user IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

    A previous sockpuppet report focusing on their meatpuppet activities was filed that documents an identical pattern of reversion to their PR version of the article. [66]. The religious organization apparently wishes to down play in use of mediumship, channelling and possession as it also has political ambitions and exclude any references to informed, independent websites disclosing these mediumistic teachings and support victims. Creationcreator (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Creationcreator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made very few edits. All of them disruptive reverts or trolling. Why does this editor find it necessary to discredit other editors on the basis of their affiliation and attack the article subject? An SSP report has been filed. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:67.188.133.40 reported by User:72.79.45.93 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours by Daniel Case )

    Pepero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.188.133.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 11:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    The insistent and unverified assertion "dead copy" has been a subject to make the petty edit warrings for over months. In fact, both product, pockey and pepero are produced by Lotte corp. The owners are Koreans with Korean citizenship but lives in Japan and have established their companies in both Korea and Japan. Putting aside from this matter, "dead" is not accepted in Wikipedia.

    In addition, 24.23.197.195 who previously vandalized on the article is the same guy as 67.188.133.40 according to their ip address check.[67], [68] --72.79.45.93 (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I notice you too seem to have an alternate IP. However, I agree that 67's additions are WP:POV pushing, at best, though I don't quite know the term "dead-copy". The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If You implied that I'm the other anon, 76.28.138.146 and you were an administrator, check my ip. I have nothing to hide myself with an alternative ip address. The consistent vanalism should't be here anyway. --72.79.45.93 (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's confusing with the number of anonymous IP addresses, but I can definitely say that I'm not 72.79.45.93, whoever s/he may be.--76.28.138.146 (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While Lotte does have a presence in Japan, I don't think they are affiliated with the makers of Pocky. That doesn't excuse the weasel words that have been used though.--76.28.138.146 (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/88.78.12.2 reported by User:PeeJay (Result:Blocked for 24 hours )

    UEFA Champions League 2007-08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 88.78.12.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    The original edits were carried out by 88.77.244.194 (talk · contribs), and since then various IPs I believe to be the same person have continually reverted established users' attempts to remove that person's edit. – PeeJay 15:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bramlet Abercrombie reported by User:John Broughton (Result: 24 hour block)

    Wikimedia Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bramlet Abercrombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 3RR warning in September; time reported: 20:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC) (Actually, he's gaming the system; he and another editor aren't even bothering with edit summaries when they revert each other - just a pure edit/revert war. An admin warning about system gaming, at minimum, would be appreciated; this is nonsense. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reyn116 reported by User:Clicketyclick (Result: 24h)

    The Orange Box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Reyn116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This person has reverted the page 4 times today and has reverted the page 5 times in total (not including the first insertion.) S/he has been copy-pasting entire articles from external websites into this page and Thatcrazycommie, Lazyguythewerewolf, 86.154.85.164, and I have all taken issue with this and expressed the reasons why s/he should not do this. I have invited this user to discussion in order to resolve the conflict in my edit summaries, on the discussion page, and on his/her user talk page, but s/he has not responded. S/he does not even use the edit summary box to explain his/her constant reverts. This person shows no indications that s/he will do anything to discuss this and will only continue copy-pasting entire (redundant) articles from other websites into Wikipedia indefinitely, ignoring all attempts at discussion. clicketyclickyaketyyak 23:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     

    UPDATE: User ignored your warning and reverted again, this time including an insult to those who undo his/her changes ("Sony fanboy"). Now a total of six people have told this user to stop (adding you and BillPP to the four mentioned previously.)
    Here's the latest revert: 00:03, 17 December 2007 only 16 minutes after you gave this user a warning. clicketyclickyaketyyak 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE 2: and another revert: 00:15, 17 December 2007 a mere 8 minutes after another user reversed their revert. At this point, it borders on vandalism. This person doesn't appear to be inclined to stop unless they are forced to. clicketyclickyaketyyak 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for 24 hours. Prodego talk 00:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Flyer22 reported by User:Unwhitewasher (Result: sock blocked)

    Rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flyer22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: see edit summary on 4th revert reported above. Reported user remarks demonstrating developed cynical awareness of the 3RR requirement - ie. warning requirement therefore waived per WP:3RR.

    Reactive contracollaborative actions from reported user ignoring repeat invitations to bring discussions about the appropriateness and reliable sourcing of content supplied from the Encyclopaedia Brittania. Demonstration of unilateral unseemly belligerent/accusative biting in choice of edit summary content. Need we put up with any more of it from the reported user? Action please. TY & Merry Xmas Unwhitewasher (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Blocked reporter as obvious abusive sock of banned user. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Armon reported by User:Timeshifter (Result: No Action (Revised by nat.utoronto 23:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)) 24 hours)

    Second Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    The easy way to see the reversion is to look at the casualties infobox and the casualties section of the article before [70] and after [71] the reversion. The article had been basically stable since Tiamut's version [72] on November 30, 2007. Tewfik initiated this latest round of major blind reversions. Armon tagged along after Tewfik. On November 28, 2007 on Armon's talk page Gatoclass pointed out [73] a previous 3RR violation by Armon concerning the casualties section of this article. Armon self-reverted that time. This time Armon made a few more edits of other articles after I left the 3RR warning on his talk page, but did not self-revert this article. Tewfik and Armon have been gaming 3RR for a long time concerning this article, and Tewfik has gotten other people blocked with his 3RR gaming. The purpose has been to obfuscate Palestinian civilian/noncombatant casualties. Almost all discussion on the article talk page since early August 2007 has been about casualties. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you read what I wrote? Armon was warned about 3RR a few weeks ago, and self-reverted. So he knows about 3RR. Further warnings about 3RR are a courtesy, not a requirement. Also, Armon has been editing Wikipedia since February 2006 and well knows about 3RR since he has been editing contentious Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles for a long time. Also, quoting you from a comment higher up; "3RR is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"". --Timeshifter (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) Could another admin have a look at this? There is an ongoing edit war. I think the admin nat.u made a mistake in reading this report, and is no longer editing today. Please see my previous comment for details. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Nat. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.255.11.149 reported by User:Strothra (Result: no violation)

    Juan Carlos I of Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.255.11.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    Strothra (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey now; I don't have a bunch of people to join me in my side of this 3RR, like you and your buddies play the WP:GAME to get what you want, even if you refuse to answer the talk page before adding unsubstantiated, unreferenced claims about Juan Carlos. I love the guy a bunch, but he's no imperial claimant, except by you, User:Michaelsanders and perhaps a few other Wikipedians. You are not the source. Bring a source, cite it as said. The article on Juan Carlos has to follow the same format as preceding monarchs of Spain. The claim that he alone is a Byzantine claimant is without citation, while neither the preceding monarch and his heir have this succession box. You can't just place this succession box in the middle of nowhere, while it is clear that the rest of the Spanish monarchs' succession boxes nowhere include the title "Byzantine Emperor", except for those few involved with Andreas Palaeologus. Look, I am a serious monarchist and sincerely believe in the Spanish monarchy. I expect serious editors and not blind fanatics who have not cited references. This issue would be best left to the talk page. Throughout all this edit warring, you have not substantiated this claim, just readded what appears to be a WP:HOAX to many of the PhD.s in history here at Wikipedia, like User:Clio the Muse, User:Xn4, User:Adam Bishop and User:John Kenney. In fact, I defer to their expertise almost constantly. You should listen to what they have to say; they know their stuff! Follow editorial convention and cite your historical sources, if you have any. As far as you've shown me, there are none to be had. I will stop removing this data if you have a source, properly in context and not distorted shamefully to serve a warped POV. So, who says that Juan Carlos is the current Byzantine claimant? In my defense of "breaking the 3RR": Talk:Philip_I_of_Castile#Philip_never_claimed_the_title_Emperor_of_the_Romans. Michael Sanders has been continually attacking my edits without foundation. I have been forced to stave off both an absolute monarchist (Strotha) and Sanders, whose own profile page indicates his willingness to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for personalized conflict, in which he'll never give up what he believes in. Look at Sanders's block log: [74] Also view the talk page on Juan Carlos, where we are presently articulating the nonsense being peddled forth here: Talk:Juan_Carlos_I_of_Spain#Juan_Carlos_doesn.27t_claim_the_title_Emperor_of_the_Romans. The original discussion is here: Talk:List_of_titles_and_honours_of_the_Spanish_Crown#Proof_of_Byzantine_inheritance. I even posted this dispute on the talk page of Sanders (User_talk:Michaelsanders#They_never_called_themselves_his_heirs.2C_or_used_the_title_.22Emperor_of_the_Romans.22.) and he ignored it, rather than address the pertinent issue. He returned to revert warring, instead of discussion. I have been discussing this issue point for point with the great and respected minds of Wikipedia, in addition to keeping this article at a sane, citable level (although I haven't actually looked at the rest, because I'm only interested in the dubious Byzantine aspect of it). If this Strotha or Sanders can "pwn" me with knowledge of my error on the data (which I've checked and compared with respectable Wikipedians), rather than how I've acted per 3RR, then I wont ever edit these articles again! More backdrop of this discussion, which apparently nobody has picked up on: User_talk:24.255.11.149#Byzantine_claims/User_talk:Tourskin#Talk:List_of_Byzantine_Emperors/Talk:List_of_Byzantine_Emperors#Spanish_Royalty.3F 24.255.11.149 (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I too (like 24.255.11.149) find the 'Byzantine Emperor' claim 'questionable'. However, being combative over it's inclusion isn't the way to go. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Strothra very recently got blocked for breaking the 3RR: [75] 24.255.11.149 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    More edit warring by User:Michaelsanders: Talk:Charles_V,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#Edit_War 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See what I mean about the hypocrisy?: [76] & [77] User:SqueakBox is another crazy editor who doesn't deserve to get "credit for fighting" against my RVV, considering his intense block log history. I'm not so bad, huh? This "lone ranger" is tired of keeping watch. Whichever administrator that has a good history background, feel free to do what you want in this situation--even if it means I go down too...I don't care anymore. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't like to see an editor leave Wikipedia on a sour note. Here's hoping he reconsiders. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:John Gohde reported by User:Jim Butler (Result:24h)

    Medical acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Gohde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]




    User has been blocked repeatedly in the past for 3RR and other violations, cf. block log.

    User wants to classify topic (medical acupuncture) as a "manipulative therapy", but refuses requests for a source. He also told me "stop wasting my time on your nonsense".

    A request: User has a history of contentious editing, having once been banned for a year. As I and other users will readily attest, his pattern of disruptive editing has continued. I think the problem here goes well beyond 5RR (!) and that perhaps a community ban of significant duration is in order. Any advice or help in implementing that would be much appreciated. Thank you. --Jim Butler(talk) 04:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:70.68.148.228 reported by User:Daniel J. Leivick (Result:24 hours )

    The War Between the Classes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.68.148.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [82]

    Continued removal of valid clean up tags, without discussion. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.112.23.57 reported by User:Alvestrand (Result:24 hours )

    Photon belt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 76.112.23.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    User reverted 3 times. I (mistakenly) blocked him for 3RR; another editor commented that it was unwise to do so while editing the page, so I unblocked and placed a warning. Now I feel someone else should look. Alvestrand (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.215.235.8 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result:65.198.237.20 blocked 24 hours; 68.215.235.8 not blocked. )

    Second Coming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.215.235.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 65.198.237.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    The anonymous user has been adding a non-notable figure to the page with self-published references. He's been constantly reverted by three users over many days, and has just passed 3RR. He's used the same IP for all but one cases. Jeff3000 (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Qworty & User:Arzel reported by User:Mbisanz (Result: Warning)

    Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Qworty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [83]


    User:Qworty

    User:Arzel

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Controversial article that just came out of protectiona few days ago. As a semi-involved party, felt I should report this as its a BLP and accuracy there is super-important. Mbisanz (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Also, User:Arzel started a thread on User:Qworty here [93] , but this seems like the more appropriate place to bring this part of the dispute. Mbisanz (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't wish to get technical rather than adhering to the spirit of 3RR, which I do very much believe in, but my initial edit [94] was not a revert, but the addition of new information that came out in today's New York Times. I won't revert it any further, and I do apologize if I've misunderstood the guideline, but I do not believe I have violated it. For a discussion as to whether this issue is actually BLP (it involves in fact a dead man, George Romney) please see [95] Thank you very much, and I appreciate everyone's input. Qworty (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is clear that this is a violation of WP:BLP as an example of WP:COAT. User Qworty has been attempting for some time to add to the Mitt Romney article allegations of previous racist misdeeds by the Mormon Church to the MR article. I was following guidelines under WP:BLP by which the 3RR rules does not apply. Arzel (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an note that Qworty's original edit (ending in id 262) was never included in this report. Arzel's revert of that edit was included as his first revert. Mbisanz (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my original edit is part of the report. It's the first one you mention, incorrectly noted as a "revert." The edit history shows [96] that I have made four edits to the article today (Dec 18). The first edit is the addition of new information from the New York Times. The next three edits are reverts. I never did make a fourth revert and have no intention of doing so. Qworty (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not believe this has technically reached 3RR, however there is clearly edit warring going on. I also agree with comments elsewhere by Arzel regarding BLP and NPOV concerns. I am warning everyone against edit warring and have warned Qworty about BLP issues. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Struck Qworty's name, as technically he has not reverted an article 4 times in 24 hours. Please forgive my math error Mbisanz (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, Arzel should have been blocked. And I support his side in this content dispute. BLP is being taken extremely loosely in this instance, and to use it as an excuse to violate 3RR is ridiculous. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anietor reported by User:Xi Zhu (Result: User:Xi Zhu blocked for disruption)

    Christianity in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anietor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Multiple rollbacks.
    All parties seem to be edit waring here, article protected by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. henrik•talk 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked User:Xi Zhu for disruption, and unprotected the page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brian0324 reported by User:Xi Zhu (Result: User:Xi Zhu blocked for disruption)

    Protestantism in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Brian0324 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Multiple rollbacks.
    All parties seem to be edit waring here, article protected by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. henrik•talk 20:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Xi Zhu blocked for disruption. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hentai Jeff reported by User:TheFarix (Result: 7 hours)

    Project A-Kon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hentai Jeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [102]

    Hentai Jeff (talk · contribs) restored some information that had been changed in March and recently removed by an anonymous IP.[103] Since Jeff did not include any source to the removed information, I removed the restored information as original research.[104] Jeff reverted the edit and I removed the information again[105] and later removed the rest of the paragraph and on preceding it that was also marked as being uncited since March.[106] Jeff then reverted both of these edits (2&3) and then proceed to tell me not no edit the article any further.[107] By then, Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs) removed the paragraphs twice to which Jeff restored them told him not the edit the article.[108] This editor appears to have some serious ownership issues with the article based on what is on the articles talk page and in the history of the article when the same information was previously removed as unsourced, possible original research. --Farix (Talk) 00:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saintjust reported by User:HongQiGong (Result: Page protected)

    The Rape of Nanking (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Saintjust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    User:68.155.120.99 reported by User:Count Silvio (Result: No violation)

    Rum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.155.120.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 1:09, 20 December 2007 (GMT+2)


    • The reported IP keeps removing the relevant link (refined vices) from external links of the page and is not responding on the talk page. I've also linked to the three revert rule on the talk page.
    • There have been multiple reverts by the same person over the time period the link has been there.

    User:R. fiend reported by User:Domer48 (Result: No violation)

    Easter Rising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). R. fiend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [109]


    This editor has attempted to introduce WP:OR on a number of occasions, including improper synthesis of material. I have attempted to draw this editors attention to this on the talk page here but as the last edit summary they made here shows, they are not interested. I must point out, that I have had a number of encounters with this editor, and feel it only right to point this out. Here are the diff’s [114] and [115] . Domer48 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the third diff a revert? It appears to immediately follow the edit identified as the second revert, which would seem to imply this is a self-revert or a single revert over multiple edits. In any case, I've already protected the page from editing; will leave this report up for another admin to respond. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation. Reverts 3 does not count as it is a revert without edit-warring (part of two consecutive edits by the same user). R. fiend's actions may require scrutiny but this is no place for that. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JHunterJ reported by User:Abtract (Result: Invalid)

    MS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JHunterJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [116]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [121]

    This user is an admin so should know better even without a warning!

    I was simply trying to improve MS as I have done before (it is a page that interests me for personal reasons) and I was reverted without discussion. I may well have been off on the wrong track though I think I have put the page right now ... but at not point did JHunterJ make any attempt at dialogue, preferring to revert me ... as an admin he should know better. Abtract (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverts were of different edits that User:Abtract was trying to foist upon Wikipedia without forming consensus (BRBRBRBR rather than WP:BRD); in particular the fourth revert was after a complete. See also Talk:MS to see how the edits are contrary to WP:MOSDAB and consensus there. This is not the first time Abtract has engaged in disruptive edits here or on other articles. Perhaps I should have protected the article earlier in the sequence... -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response The fact that the reverts were of different edits (and they were marginally different in an attempt to improve on my previous attempt) is immaterial, as this admin should know. My edits were all in good faith and in no way intended to be "disruptive" (indeed I have never tried to be disruptive but I have been carried away occasionally with an attack of overenthusiastic "knowing I am right", which is wikistupidity I know) but I received very little guidance from JHunterJ who simply reverted with the briefest of non-helpful edit summary - note I was the first to use the talk page - it was only after his 4th revert that he had the decency to give me chapter and verse on where I was going wrong (an admin's job surely?). I have now put matters right but with a version of the page changed from that of a few days ago, an improvement I believe and in line with policy. I would have done this earlier if advised properly from the start.
    To be honest I wouldn't have reported JHunterJ had he not been an admin but surely he should have known, and behaved, better? Abtract (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you should take the trouble to read the edit summaries I used, such as this one on the first revert: "Disambig page style repair: (you can help!), restore Microsoft, de-bold, etc.)" which links to the dab project. You have also been repeatedly referred to WP:MOSDAB, and you are editing MS knowingly contrary to it without forming consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war on Pandyan Kingdom reported by User:StephenBuxton (Result: Malformed report; protected)

    Pandyan Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Time reported: 11:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    I apologise that this isn't following the correct template. I was watching recent edits, and came upon this edit war. I have no idea which is the correct version, but there appears to be three versions that arebeing switched between, and an awful lot of name calling. The three versions are as follows

    • Previous version reverted to: [122]
    • Previous version reverted to: [123]
    • Previous version reverted to: [124]



    Can an administrator step in and bring about peace, please? StephenBuxton (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please use the proper reporting template with diffs if you wish to report a 3RR violation. If you want to report bad behaviour or edit-warring, please use WP:ANI and if you want to request protection, use WP:RFPP. However, in order to avoid needless bureaucracy I've protected the page for a week. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:R. fiend reported by User:Domer48 (Result: Warning)

    Tom Clarke (Irish republican) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). R. fiend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [125]



    This editor has attempted to introduce WP:OR on a number of occasions, including improper synthesis of material. I have attempted to draw this editors attention to this but as one edit summary they made here shows, they are not interested. I must point out, that I have had a number of encounters with this editor, and feel it only right to point this out. Here are the diff’s [130] and [131]. Ihave also had to place a report last night on a different article here. Domer48 (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Twice in one day a report made about this admin as i said earlier he blocked editors for less and my reading of 3RR is you do not actually have to have 4 edits for a block and as an admin im sure he is aware of this.BigDunc (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have placed a final warning about the civility/personal attacks on his page. I will not take action on the 3RR request, but I want it noted that R. fiend recently blocked Domer for 3RR violations, who he was in an edit war with. SirFozzie (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IHATEMYLIFEXXX reported by User:Zedla (Result: 24 hours)

    Poway High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). IHATEMYLIFEXXX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    1. revert: 22:06, 20 December 2007
    2. revert: 22:08, 20 December 2007
    3. revert: 22:32, 20 December 2007
    4. revert: 06:10, 21 December 2007
    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    User repeatedly reverts to edit identified as problematic. User was warned of 3RR well ahead of 4th revert. User may be sockpuppet Zedla (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for twenty-four hours, as the user is clearly edit warring. I would ask Zedla to please not use rollbacks that identify the edits as vandalism during content disputes any longer. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, flagging the edits as v was in error. Zedla (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xchange reported by User:Fbagatelleblack (Result: 24 hours)

    Plug-in hybrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xchange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [132]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [137]

    I firmly believe that User:Xchange is editing in good faith. However, his edits demonstrate a non-neutral viewpoint, are speculative, rely on random definitions for terms such as 'Large Format' include spelling mistakes, and are generally non-encyclopedic. Other editors, including myself, have tried to reason with him, but he does not appear willing to listen to and/or accept our arguments and requests that he attempt to achieve consensus. Please review this matter as time allows and make judgments according to your expertise. If you feel that I am in danger of violating WP:3RR please let me know how I should change my editing behavior in the future to avoid such danger, and understand that I will not engage in further edits on this article until admins have weighed in. Also, any suggestions as to how I should handle similar situations in the future would be much appreciated. Many thanks. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wtimrock reported by User:Djsasso (Result: 24 hours)

    Adam Beason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wtimrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User keeps removing {{db-bio}} tag. Has been warned a couple of times by me not to remove it and to add {{hangon}} tag. It appears he has had this issue in the past with afd/speedy tags based on his talk page. Djsasso (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    =

    User:QuackGuru reported by User:Anthon01 (Result: User warned)

    Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Continually reverting against consensus. Although he hasn't reverted a fourth time, he periodically returns and performs the same edits against consensus. I believe he is breaking the spirit of the rule. I believe there is another incident here. Anthon01 (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure why this report was even made when you said yourself that the editor in question has not reverted a fourth time. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the 3RR says you can be in violation even if you haven't reverted more than 3 times. Anthon01 (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see a situation that needs blocking here, although Quackwatch QuackGuru really shouldn't have reverted this many times. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm not defending QuackGuru's very bold editing and edit warring, the term "consensus" is very dubious in this case, especially considering who brought this to the table and the other editor who is opposing QuackGuru. They too are edit warring, editing disruptively on multiple articles, and they have a habit of claiming a consensus when it doesn't really exist. Warnings to all parties would be more appropriate. -- Fyslee / talk 16:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Who brings it to the table doesn't matter. You are making blanket accusations without any diffs. Prove it. I had one incident several weeks ago and was blocked (I am a new user and completely misinterpreted the meaning of WP:CCC). Other than that I have not violated 3RR. There was a consensus of one section that is "Quackwatch as a source." QuackGuru repeatedly tries to change it to two sections, one called "Recognition" and the other called "Criticisms." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Fyslee here. See also this thread on the talk page of one of the involved users. I note that Anthon01, after filing this report, went on to 3RR by partially reverting my only edit (which was, in turn, a revert of material removed by QG). This seems to make this a questionable report and Anthon01's third series of edits now looks like part of the edit war (diff). Avb 16:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review my diffs.
    # http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=179481245&oldid=179472637 An edit
    # http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=179490314&oldid=179487577 A revert with a warning.
    # http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=179498835&oldid=179496678 An edit of new material containing an WP:OR violation. Anthon01 (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the text that QuackGuru removed "Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review published in The Consultant Pharmacist, recommends that Quackwatch implement formal peer review processes for their web site."
    This is the text that Avb later placed on the QuackGuru Quackwatch article that I edited soon after "In a 1999 article in the The Consultant Pharmacist, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa PharmD gave Quackwatch a positive review for two articles that discussed "natural remedies" and reported that pharmacies continued stocking such alternative remedies although unaware of their efficacy, as the profit margins were larger than for conventional drugs. Nguyen-Khoa recommended that a mirror "academic counterpoint" and a more rigorous review process be put in place to improve the website as a resource for consultant pharmacists." Although related, it was very different text.
    I then removed a WP:OR violation edited it to this "In a 1999 article in the The Consultant Pharmacist, Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa PharmD discussed of two articles from Quackwatch of particular interest to pharmacists. The articles reported that pharmacies continued stocking alternative remedies although unaware of their efficacy, as the profit margins were larger than for conventional drugs. In discussing the site limitations, Nguyen-Khoa recommended that Quackwatch institute mirrored "academic counterpoint" and that a "giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation." Anthon01 (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have commented on the matter on Anthon01's talk page here. Avb 17:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the text can be found on User Talk:Levine2112 Anthon01 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it can't: I posted my comment on your talk page. You chose to remove it, but the link above still leads to my comment since it's a diff. You may want to read this entire AN/3RR thread as you seem to have missed the link to Levine2112's talk in my first contribution above. Avb 18:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I didn't miss that. I didn't click the link to the diff on this page. My mistake. Anthon01 (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • QuackGuru is kind of a menace. . he makes the same edits against consensus from time-to-time. . . revert wars. . . does not discuss. . . skids the edge of 3RR. . . vanishes. . . then returns a week later to the same article and does the same thing. This behavior is sanctionable. . . he have been warned plenty but you would not know it. . . he deletes any warning you post on his page.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fbil reported by User:Henrymrx (Result:protected)

    Lumbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fbil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Repeated reversions. May be the same an an anon user that was recently blocked for the same thing. User has been warned and repeatedly asked to take it to the talk page. Henrymrx (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has in fact violated the rule; some other editors are also edit warring. I'm using protection in this case. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cantamagda reported by User:Dseer (Result: no vio)

    Gangaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cantamagda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User Cantamagda is aware of their 3RR violations but alleges that "3RR does not apply to "unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons." [141] Furthermore, Cantamagda has also either deleted or altered the words of other editors on the talk page, e.g., [142]. User Cantamagda's edits show distinct bias towards the subject and deletionism towards sourced controversy.--Dseer (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has a red link for a talk page, how could he possibly be sufficiently warned? John Reaves 21:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    NB user name was misspelled in case filing; should have been Cantamagda instead of Catamagda. User:Cantamagda indeed was warned. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about typo. Apparent single purpose editor Cantamagda has repeatedly been warned both on edits and on their talk page about 3RR and edit warring, and the response was exactly as stated above, though controversial material is sourced.--Dseer (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:217.43.77.43 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: no vio)

    11th millennium and beyond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 217.43.77.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently random date changes, similar to diff of 16:21, December 9, 2007


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.


    Seems to be a systemic campaign to change the far-future dates. So far, he hasn't reverted since the warning, but this can change.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • No vio Not reverts, GDonato (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I'd caught him earlier, we could confirm that all of the edit sets changed 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion for the time that the sun becomes a red giant, which was also added back on December 9. Unfortunately, that change was made in the first revert set, but two days earlier, so I felt it improper to include it in the 1st revert. But I agree that there's no vio, because he did stop after being warned. If he continues, .... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Neutralhomer reported by User:JPG-GR (Result: nobody's getting blocked today )

    WBXX (FM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 20:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has violated the 3RR rule on WBXX (FM):

    I have repeatedly pointed out the format change of this radio station both in my edit summaries and on my talk page. He has repeatedly "templated" me. User has previously been blocked for a 3RR.

    (Full-disclosure) I should also note that upon checking the edit history, I may have violated the policy myself in the process of updating the article to include the new, updated information. In this case, I lost count of the edits, and I have not reverted since my edit here, where I thought I was at 2R and haven't edited further since. If I, too, must be blocked for a period of time, I will accept that punishment. JPG-GR (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It should also be noted that to violate the 3RR you have to make 4 or more revisions, I stopped at 3. - NeutralHomer T:C 20:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    dont game the system. βcommand 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Beta, stay out of it. JPG, your second diff, wasn't a revision. I use TWINKLE for my revisions or I say "revert" in the edit summary. That was a simple cut and paste. Still 3. Sorry. - NeutralHomer T:C 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it looks like a duck (all the difs are identical) and quacks like a duck (you have a history of blindly reverting me), calling it "not a duck" doesn't make it not a duck. JPG-GR (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've detwinkled Neutralhomer, but nobody need get blocked here. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Moreschi. Now, here's the question - should I wait 24 hours to be safe before updating the info in the article as reflected on their website, or am I good to do so now? Thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    JPG, I can answer that one and it is yes. To be on the safe side though, you should wait at least 30 hours. If you go 24 hours and 1 minute, some admins can still consider it a 3RR violation. - NeutralHomer T:C 20:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gentleman, perhaps you could both stop reverting each other and use the flaming talk page, which seems to be complete virgo intacta. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Moldopodo reported by User:Ungurul (Result:Both blocked for 3RR following comments at WP:ANI)

    Balti steppe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Moldopodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    He was blocked also on other wikipedias, like French Wikipedia for the same POV-pushing. http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=Utilisateur:Moldopodo He was blocked before also here for disruptive, edit warriors on Romanian articles. He was unblocked with condition he will not edit war again. Well, he did many times.. Ungurul (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Both blocked. Moldopodo 1 week, Ungurul 24hrs, per AN/I.Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ungurul--Hu12 (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 71.241.117.196 reported by User:Doczilla (Result: blockity blocked )

    List of zombie films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 71.241.117.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anonymous user at 71.241.117.196 keeps reinserting I Am Legend into the article List of zombie movies even though Box Office Mojo and the movie's own promotional materials do not classify it as a zombie movie. The anonymous user's opinion that it's a zombie movie is not a sufficient source for inclusion. User was warned after the fourth revert, but made a fifth revert anyway. Doczilla (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC) A sixth revert has now appeared. Doczilla (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit war continues:

    Unfortunately, this means that someone else has also committed a 3RR violation despite advice to avoid doing that, so an additional report will follow. Doczilla (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite arguably this is vandalism anyway, but it's certainly disruptive edit-warring against consensus. 31 hours. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 00:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Irishguy reported by User:Doczilla (Result: 24 hours)

    List of zombie movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Irishguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 01:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [143]


    17:17, 23 December 2007

    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    A more formal warning followed, after the other person in the edit war had already been blocked. 18:58, 23 December 2007

    An anonymous user kept inserting a movie onto List of zombie movies. Other editors, including myself, considered that to be a bad edit. That's a difference of opinion, though, "arguably" vandalism as noted by the admin who blocked the anonymous user but not obvious vandalism per exceptions stated in the 3RR policy. I put a note in the article stating why that particular movie should not be added to the list, but I added that note after these reverts started, therefore its removal by the anoymous user was not vandalism of existing article content. Irishguy kept reverting even after I cautioned him not to make a 3RR violation. Doczilla (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Irishguy believes he was reverting vandalism, according to his comments on the talk page. I believe this is completely incorrect, and that Irishguy was edit warring with no justification. Blocks of admins are always controversial, and I frankly haven't got the time to put up with drama at this point, so I'm not willing to block without a second opinion at this point. (To anyone who says this isn't fair that admins get a free pass when another user would have been blocked: get us to the point where these blocks can be made without drama, and I'll be equally ready to make them.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CJCurrie reported by User:isarig (Result: Page Protected)

    New antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CJCurrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    Repeated movements of an image from one section of the article to another, over the objections of numerous editors, which come on the heels of a similar edit war (involving gaming of 3rr) to try and remove the image altogether . Isarig (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved, I filed a similar report as I too was watching this page at the time. That is now deleted. Note that he's been removing this image from the lead for 4 days now, and has been reverted by 7 different editors. I came in and tried to mediate a compromise but the belligerency has only continued unabated. And he's been editing for 3.5 years, and is well aware of the 3RR policy as evidenced by this and this and this. Lobojo (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm ... I've looked over the time diffs, and it appears as though I did accidentally violate the 3RR. I apologize for this; I thought that I was within my rights to carry out the last edit, but apparently I forgot the time. I'd self-revert, but someone else has already beaten me to it.
    I might add that the "belligerency", such that it exists, is not all on one side in this matter. There's a nasty content dispute currently taking place, and tempers are running a bit high. (Btw, the "reverted by seven different editors" line is a complete misrepresentation. There have been several editors involved on both sides of this content dispute. A few days ago, I put forward a compromise text that seemed to have support from across the spectrum. Most of the other participants have since left the discussion page; two editors have continued to oppose me.)
    I'm not particularly impressed with the fact that I wasn't informed of this 3RR report, nor with the fact that it wasn't filed until someone else had reverted me (thereby preventing the possibility of my self-reverting), nor with the fact that I never received a warning (the "Difftime" link doesn't lead anywhere). CJCurrie (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I might also add that User:Isarig had not edited Wikipedia in six days before filing this report, and that User:Lobojo filed an identical report a few moments after (since removed). Somehow, it seems to me as though people were waiting to pounce on an accidental slip-up ... CJCurrie (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    CJ, you know about 3RR and thus a "warning" is no needed. You are no newbie... Regardless of the heated dispute, recurrent reversions are not acceptable. As I have edited that page recently, I will not block, otherwise I would. Better, would be if you desist from an editing behavior that includes recurrent reversions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Edokter reported by User:Yukichigai (Result: )

    Torchwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edokter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Previous version reverted to: [144] (with note added)


    Standard edit war over arguably unsourced information, but the user is an admin and should know better. Might have stopped if he (she?) had left it as the more neutral wording, rather than completely obliterating the paragraph. As a side note, the user has also semi-protected the page, a distinct no-no for admins, though I realize that should be handled elsewhere. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 18:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Happyme22 reported by [[User:74.73.106.239 (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)]] (Result: )

    Nancy Reagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). NAME_OF_USER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

    Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: [155]

    User:Happyme22 is dominating the article on Nancy Reagan with what I believe to be a clear bias. He is monopolizing the iissue of the article summary and how it is presented. Further, he has posted many reverts within a reasonable time period but has not been blocked despite my bringing this to the attention of administrators. Please assist. 74.73.106.239 (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Example

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

===[[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: )===
*[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

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

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->

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

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

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

A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=179995682"