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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
The Thunderer (talk | contribs)
4,015 edits
Line 696: Line 696:


Editor has been final-warned. The next revert will result in a block - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Editor has been final-warned. The next revert will result in a block - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::::It's patently obvious what's going on here but I will extend good faith and not accuse anyone of pre-planning this tag teaming effort. May I suggest again that editors opposed to the UDR just don't edit the page. If you have something constructive to add then add it but this removing of information because it doesn't fit in with an individuials own views on the Irish troubles is not what Wikipedia is about in my view. [[User:The Thunderer|The Thunderer]] ([[User talk:The Thunderer|talk]]) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


= Example =
= Example =

Revision as of 19:41, 13 August 2008

Template:Moveprotected

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

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

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

    Click here to create a new report


    Violations

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


    User:Ctjf83 reported by User:Vandalismdestroyer33 (Result: not granted)

    Ctjf83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 03:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)11:16pm August 9 2008


    • 1st revert: [1]
    • 2nd revert: [2]
    • 3rd revert: [3]
    • 4th revert: [4]
    • 5th revert: [5]
    • 6th revert: [6]
    Ya, I was reverting vandalism and unsourced edits...the page has been protected to prevent the sock puppet user that reported me from editing this page Ctjf83Talk 07:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please follow the format as outlined in the Example section below: you're missing a link to the 3rr warning as well as the time & date reverts). El_C 07:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note The reporter has been blocked as an evident SPA sockpuppet. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's that, then. El_C 07:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Presumptive reported by User:VegitaU (Result: 12 hours)

    Presumptive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 06:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


    This is a bad faith report because I simply was doing housekeeping to use the version that was a result of a 13 day talk page discussion. The accusing user and his friend keeps reverting it to a non-consensus version that has opposition, WP:LEAD violations, and bad prose problems. I have ceased editing it and let them have their own way but I have asked an administrator to help resolve this. I am for discussion and compromise but the accuser unfortunately is not. Maybe this admin will help us (but he is going to sleep now).

    Also note that there was no warning. The warning reported is just a generic one that is old. Presumptive (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You have been warned in the past. You know about 3RR violations. Your "adopter" even warned you about it. Instead, you decided to muscle your revisions through no matter the group of editors that disagreed with you. While I have tried to engage in discussion about your changes, you continue to trumpet your one-man consensus revisions in the face of everyone else. -- Veggy (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You reverted without discussion so if you are calling for punishment, you should receive it, VegitaU. What are you complaining about because I have let you win and let you have your way even though the 13-14 day discussion of the 7 lead sentence versions have few comments from you. If you and IceColdBeer are complaining, you should have discussed it. Even now, you fail to discuss and compromise, just nag until others let you have your way. Please join me in discussion and compromise. I have already let you have your way and let the matter go for now. Presumptive (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My adopter has said that I am right. I even let you have your way even though your reverts have no consensus. Presumptive (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I have tried to engage in discussion. Please, Presumptive, click on the links of my reply above. You can't claim that I am failing to engage in discussion when there is undeniable evidence that I have been. -- Veggy (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: Edit summaries like this really invite discussion. -- Veggy (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment While there was edit-warring by this user, this is blatant forum shopping. [7] Enigma message 07:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. It doesn't matter to me who the users in question are. I'm commenting because I was about to remove an AIV report before but someone else beat me to it. Enigma message 07:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if this helps, but another user posted the same 3RR complaint[8] but removed it because it was a duplicate of this one. Also, I edit-conflicted with Veggy's report while trying to post my own report. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that, Aude. -- Veggy (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah. After I withdrew it, thanks. -- Veggy (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    12 hours. El_C 07:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:InuYoshi reported by User:Bignole (Result: 12 hour block/quickly unblocked as user has reverted edits.)

    InuYoshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Original version

    User has participated in discussions on the talk page, but continues to revert whenever another editor disagrees and changes the page back, ignoring consensus debates.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Elliskev reported by User:Jim Furtado (Result: warned)

    Elliskev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 01:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

    • 3rd and 4th are clear reverts he just pressed the undo button


    This is a complex matter since there are some edits in between his reverts, he has continued after the 24 H period to revert back to his version as can be seen HERE Jim Furtado (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please stick to the format outlined at Example page. Report not acted on due to lack of 3rr warning. Feel free to add a diff to it at any time. El_C 07:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, thanks; but 3rr warning needs to be issued to the user prior to 3rr being breached. El_C 07:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User was clearly aware of 3RR, but none of the reverts are massively obnoxious. I'll let him off with a warning, as it's all rather complicated and he may not have been aware he was near 3RR. Moreschi (talk) (debate)
    Repsonse

    This is a bad report. The talk page consensus was to keep a table in the article. My edits were restorations of continued removal by User:Jim Furtado after the discussion. I'll probably have more after going through the diffs provided. This user is not acting in good faith. He is being dishonest with the facts. He has accused me of vandalism, sock-puppetry, and racism. --Elliskev 12:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The "consensus" were mostly of newly created acounts and an ip adress and they all just happen to agree with him and they all just happen to post imediately after he had posted on the discussion page, so most likely they are sock puppets of someone, and the graph in it self is by deafult racist. And I never for one second called him a racist, only the graph it is User:Elliskev that is dishonest as always with the facts Jim Furtado (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpreted your claim that the graph is "racist" as an implication that I was supporting a "racist" graph, and by extension, that you were implying that I am a racist. I will accept you at your word that it wasn't your intent. --Elliskev 00:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow-up after reviewing diffs
    This is an article with lots and lots of changes happening very quickly.
    The first pair of diffs... I don't know what those are. They aren't my edits.
    In the second grouping of diffs provided:
      • The first diff was a removal of text supported by this discussion.
      • The second diff provided was restoring the table referenced above (the first time).
      • The third diff provided is not presented correctly. That wasn't my edit. it is two consecutive edits, one by me and another by another editor. – this edit and my edit which is clearly undoing vandalism.
      • Finally, the fourth diff was my second restoring of the table. This was immediately followed-up with my taking the issue to the talk page (the discussion referenced above) in which I specifically said I would not restore it again. Someone else restored it after there was adequate discussion.
    Since then User:Jim Furtado has continued to try to remove if with dishonest edit summaries claiming that the discussion supported removal or that restoration was "sneaky vandalism". I left him a message on his talk, which he deleted. I have since brought the discussion back to the article talk page. I think I have done everything to act in good faith. I have been patient with Jim Furtado in his unfounded accusations, but this is just going to far. --Elliskev 13:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Elliskev was aware that he had broken the 3rr rule, and was warned but continues to ignore the fact and has now has made an illegally edit, trying to change the the outcome of the response. Obviously he has no respect for wikipedia rules, since he most likely created several sock puppet accounts that just happen to agree with him and were created as soon as he had posted on the discussion page. And I never for one second claimed it was supported on the discussion page all I wrote was look on the discussion page. And I have been EXTREMLY patient with [[User:Elliskev)) but he clearly has no respect for the Wikipedia rules as his edits and dishonesty proves. Jim Furtado (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Krzyzowiec reported by User:M0RD00R (Result: 1 week )

    Krzyzowiec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 09:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [9]


    M0RD00R (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a week. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the report directly above pertains to the same article. El_C 09:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I know. I've posted at AN requesting more admin eyes over there to keep temperatures down. We can't fully protect this one, it's too high-profile at the moment. We'll just have to block the edit-warriors. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, it has seen massive activity since I've last looked at it yesterday. El_C 09:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 reported by User:Scarian (Result: 12 hours)

    Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 10:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [10]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: Has been block for edit warring in the past, albeit, back in 2006, but still. He knows what's wrong and what's right.
    • Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Stifle (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Deathmagnetic08 reported by User:Undead_warrior (Result:Declined)

    Deathmagnetic08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 13:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [15]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [21]

    We have warned him on his talk page, the talk page of the article, and the talk page of Horna. Undeath (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • No 3RR warning; diff warns about WP:OWN but does not explain edit warring or 3RR policy. Please provide corrected diff or warn properly and return if edit warring continues. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:3rdAlcove reported by User:Larno Man (Result: Page protected)

    3rdAlcove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 01:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


    Different users are participating in a discussion on a proposed draft and trying to get consensus. However, this user reverts the current version, keep deleting disputed contents. This is the second time that 3rdAlcove violates 3rr on Cyrus Cylinder. Last time she/he was blocked for violation of 3rr on this article, edit warring in various places and posting incivil edit summaries [22] Larno Man

    No, my reverts were 3 (ie 2, 3 and 4), the first series of edits introduced a completely NEW version. As for the POV-pushing and stalling going on in that article...I guess it's quite off-topic here. Nice how you managed to dress this up, though. 3rdAlcove (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    No you reverted the same paragraph (the quote from Britannica) 4 times:

    At the first revert, you removed the Britannica quote first then you restored the older version. You had also reverted this quote and the rest of the section several times previously.[[23]][[24]][[25]]--Larno Man (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned the user, page protected. The edit warring took place nearly a day ago; at this point, the block would only be punitive, not preventative. I've decided to fully protect the page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gun Powder Ma reported by User:Anpersonalaccount (Result: both blocked)

    Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 15:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [26]


    Would someone help me out? Gun Powder Ma had made an executive revert over the article, which he failed to discuss with others. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not only that, he had also removed huge matarial from Rudder recently [31] [32] [33]! Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no breach of the 3RR rule. The only one who are breaching the rule in spirit are you, your anonymous socket puppet friend and the main contributor to the article who have changed for days now every single sourced addition I made to the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes there are, all 4th of them, you're removing PI under the article, just like what you did to Rudder! I did not changed anything to the article at all, I had only reformatted the citations! Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not necessary for 3 reverts to breach 3RR rule. Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Help, there is an edit war going-on over the article, please help! Anpersonalaccount (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gun Powder Ma blocked 48 hours, Anpersonalaccount blocked 24 hours. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Thunderbird2 reported by User:Fnagaton (Result: 24 hours)

    Thunderbird2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 16:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: The user is aware of 3RR.
    • Two other editors (including myself) have reverted Thunderbird2's attempts to change the article.Fnagaton 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Constitution of Ireland (Result: warned)

    Please see this. Two editors User:Pureditor and User:Mooretwin, have blantantly engaged in edit warings. Please don't tell me to fill out a special form or submit a complaint in a specific format when its so obvious. Djegan (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Warned – they haven't edited since the warning, hence the reason why it's generally easier for us when we have a normal 3RR report to reference. For future reference, this tool should help. --slakr\ talk / 00:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:On.Elpeleg reported by User:George (Result: 31 hours)

    On.Elpeleg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 00:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr\ talk / 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog reported by User:92.8.254.213 (Result: 1 week)

    Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 00:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

    Also,

    • Abusing other editors - "retarded" [34], "can't you read" [35], "WHERE THE FUCK do you see"... [36], "are you biased or uninformed?" [37]
    • Brute force editing - see all edits on 2008 South_Ossetia war
    • Lack of edit summary on a majority of major edits
      • A technical question. When I am looking at contributions by User:92.9.72.131, I see precisely nothing. There is no even his contributions at this noticeboard. What does it mean? Did any administrator deleted all his edit history? Why? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had one IP address (92.9.72.131) while I wrote the report and that's the IP I used to fill in the "-- Your NAME --" bit of the report template. While I was writing the report, (which took about half an hour) my partner used the phone, which dropped the ADSL connection and gave me a new IP (DHCP) so by the time I saved the page I had a different IP address to the one I'd filled out. 92.11.162.47 (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch! The edit history shows that the actual submitter of this report was 92.8.254.213 (talk · contribs). I have changed the user id in the report header accordingly. Past experience suggests this might be one of the other editors of the article who just wants to be discreet. This is unorthodox but I don't think it breaks any rules. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only other contributions I've made are a request for a citation on the article [38][39][40], a request to this editor to use edit summaries [41], a request on wikimedia commons for some information to help with the citation mentioned above [42] and a request for a discussion rather than an edit war on the talk page [43][44] [45], as well as informing this editor that I'd placed this edit war report [46]. There's another contribution by a 92.something IP [47] on Battle of Tskhinvali but it's not me. 92.11.162.47 (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, and it's on my watchlist for possible protection if this crap continues. COAHCFD has been on my radar for a while, and his prior blocks for this and his personal attacks was just the icing on the cake. seicer | talk | contribs 02:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is a loophole. Imagine that someone conducted edit-warring with COAHCFD and also violated the 3RR rule, but he does not want to be blocked too - as a result of his reporting here. Then he makes a report as an IP and avoids the responsibility.Biophys (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I get your point. The reporter of any 3RR gets extra scrutiny, and this reporter is dodging that, since we don't know who he is. If you have someone in mind who you think might have broken 3RR lately on the same article, you can bring a new report here on your own initiative. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get the point. If there's an accusation of impropriety, spell it out for me? OK, I do get it now. You're accusing me of dodging having my IP address logged in the report. See further above for the explanation of the wrong IP. 92.11.162.47 (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    O'K. I just reported one of them below. There are others.Biophys (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are others please include them as well. Making a report that you back up with evidence and then make a further accusation without backing that up with evidence is a misuse of the well defined process on this page. 92.11.162.47 (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you User:Top Gun?. Please respond.Biophys (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Congratulations on finally being able to come out and say it though, rather than just surreptitiously implying it. As I said here [48], I suggest you do the check user so you can get over whatever concerns you have. 92.9.79.191 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Offerpoint reported by Phoenix (talk) (Result: Already blocked)

    Historical powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Offerpoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is continuing edit war from former ip address listed below.
    88.109.30.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    89.168.248.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 18:11, 6 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 229930888 by UKPhoenix79 (talk)Removing French POV")
    2. 21:14, 6 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 230250903 by The Ogre (talk)")
    3. 07:20, 7 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 230278184 by UKPhoenix79 (talk)Edits are not acceptable until all French POV has been removed.")
    4. 08:45, 7 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 230362996 by UKPhoenix79 (talk)See talk as no one seems to be talking on there")
    5. 16:24, 8 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 230497010 by Oferpoint (talk)")
    6. 00:55, 9 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 230669779 by Oferpoint (talk)")
    7. 15:49, 9 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 230819712 by Oferpoint (talk)")
    8. 22:36, 9 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 230890680 by Oferpoint (talk)")
    9. 01:09, 10 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 230901148 by Oferpoint (talk)")
    10. 18:33, 10 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231009469 by Oferpoint (talk)")
    11. 04:59, 11 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231106681 by Oferpoint (talk)")
    12. 12:09, 11 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231205271 by Oferpoint (talk)")
    13. 13:31, 11 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231216298 by Oferpoint (talk)")
    14. 15:53, 11 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231248953 by Oferpoint (talk)")
    15. 00:48, 12 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231343036 by Oferpoint (talk)")
    16. 01:46, 12 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231348170 by Oferpoint (talk)")

    —Phoenix (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked Oferpoint and Offerpoint are two different editors. Both have just been indef blocked as socks by User:Avraham. I imagine that it will be safe now to undo the full protection on Historical powers. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like User:Avraham blocked him/her at 04:11. Considering that this edit war been continuous for the past 10 days I am unsure if this user will respect the unblock and let the page be. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Oferpoint reported by Phoenix (talk) (Result: Already blocked)

    Historical powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Oferpoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is continuing edit war from former ip address listed below
    82.123.119.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    83.202.95.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    83.202.84.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    83.202.87.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 22:29, 7 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 230367470 by Offerpoint (talk)")
    2. 19:15, 8 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 230638295 by Offerpoint (talk)")
    3. 15:05, 9 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 230724613 by Offerpoint (talk)")
    4. 21:58, 9 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 230826595 by Offerpoint (talk)")
    5. 23:04, 9 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 230896545 by Offerpoint (talk)")
    6. 12:48, 10 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 230920597 by Offerpoint (talk)")
    7. 22:30, 10 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231064819 by Offerpoint (talk)")
    8. 10:58, 11 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231167180 by Offerpoint (talk)")
    9. 12:28, 11 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231213701 by Offerpoint (talk)")
    10. 15:42, 11 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231225679 by Offerpoint (talk)")
    11. 00:19, 12 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231250824 by Offerpoint (talk)")
    12. 00:52, 12 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231347471 by Offerpoint (talk)")
    13. 01:59, 12 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231356950 by Offerpoint (talk)")
    14. 02:04, 12 August 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 231356950 by Offerpoint (talk)")

    —Phoenix (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked See explanation in the report above. None of the IPs mentioned here seem to be currently active, so no point in blocking them. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea User:Avraham Blocked him/her at 04:13. I was really only showing the ip's to display the persistent edit war that has been going on between these two editors. I am unsure if they will halt their attack or not... but here's hoping :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Top Gun reported by User:Biophys (Result: 3 days by Viridae independent of this report)

    Top Gun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 03:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [49]

    This user is a regular. He knows about 3RR rule. Two last reverts concern a different subject than three first reverts. Note that User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog was blocked for a week (see case above), as a result of edit warring with that user. It remains unknown who was the user reporting the "Captain".Biophys (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP that reported Captain Obvious was me and I'm not Top Gun‎. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog_reported_by_User:92.8.254.213_.28Result:_1_week.29 or this diff [50] for more details. 92.11.162.47 (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that User:Top Gun has been previously indefinitely blocked for copyright violations but released in a hope that he can reform. Apparently, he could not reform.Biophys (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've let Viridae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) aware of the threads. Top Gun is currently blocked for 72h, but I would like to see the user blocked indefinitely in light of the cases. seicer | talk | contribs 04:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. It is quite possible that "Captain" caught him with a new copyright violation (the link above)Biophys (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See [51] where I have taken it to ANI for help and some other opinions. ViridaeTalk 08:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DreamGuy reported by User:Arcayne (Result:Both blocked 48 hours )

    DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 15:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Diff of 3RR warning: editor is a long-time editor with an equally long history of edit-warring and 3RR. His last block was for 96 hours - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both blocked 48 hours. DreamGuy's 96 hour block was for incivility, not edit warring, and the current count at one locus of the article is DreamGuy 5, Arcayne 4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:65.216.70.60 reported by User:RGTraynor (Result: unrelated block )

    User:65.216.70.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked If he's already blocked for 24 hours (even for something unrelated), then there's no need to do anything further. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:99.141.31.224 reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: 12 hours )

    99.141.31.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 23:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked for 12 hours. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wehrmacht007 reported by User:StarScream1007 (Result: page protected)

    Wehrmacht007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 23:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected He isn't the only one edit warring, though he appears to be the only one who has broken 3RR. Nobody seems to be trying to use the talk page, so maybe this will help get you guys to discuss disputes rather than edit war. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.188.33.37 reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result: Page protected)

    68.188.33.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 07:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment Repeated readdition of line about character being missing. I accidentally went past three when cleaning after my third revert, so I have self-reverted. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected for a period of 2 days Stifle (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikiarrangementeditor reported by User:Roguegeek (Result: 1 week)

    Wikiarrangementeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 08:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Additional notes: Wikiarrangementeditor has been blocked on 4 separate occasions for either edit warring or 3RR violations. He's been warned over 5 times on his talk page for these specific acts. All of this from strictly editting only two articles over the last several months. This tells me that, even after the next block is lifted, he will continue to break these policies. His last block was for 48 hours. With comments to his edits such as this, this, and this, he seems emotionally invested and hell bent on making sure his edits stick. I'm sure this wont be the last time he violates 3RR. roguegeek (talk·cont) 08:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 1 week Stifle (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tripping Nambiar reported by User:Anwar saadat (Result: both blocked 96 h )

    Tripping Nambiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: [52]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [57]

    Notes - User:Tripping Nambiar removed the 3RR Warning that was placed on his talk page. He has not contributed any link or information to this article in the past one year. His only interest seems to be the section on racial identity. He removed links and asks for links. For instace, Sonagar are Tamil-speaking Muslims of race separate from Dravidian race. He refuses to acknowledge this multi-ethnic reality despite so many links provided in that article. He believes Chulia, Mamak, Kayalar, Lebbai, Marakayar, Rowther et al all belong to the same race. Looking at his log, I believe his edits to be disruptive and based on cocooned stereotypes. He managed to stick to 2RR daily for some time. His misleading edit summaries are confrontational. For instance, he calls Anwar Ibrahim was not of Tamil origin though links are provided in that article. Anwar (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems as though both violated 3RR, and both have certainly been indulging in extensive edit-warring. 96 hours for both. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both blocks reviewed and both endorsed. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fasach Nua reported by User:Aaron_carass (Result: Inactionable)

    Fasach Nua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 15:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    The user has recieved warnings User talk:Fasach Nua#Edit warring of Italy national football team. Diff of the warnings 1, 2, 3.

    The user has also repeated this edit style on several other pages about 'National Football Teams'. See User talk:Fasach Nua#Vandalism and User talk:Fasach Nua#Vandalism 2 for failed attempts at discussion and some examples of this behavior:

    See also the histories of the following pages for more examples:

    Finland national football team, Sweden national football team, Lithuania national football team, France national football team, Club América, Northern Ireland national football team, Serbia national football team, Czech Republic national football team, Russia national football team, Netherlands national football team, Republic of Ireland national football team

    This might be better suited at WP:ANI, because there isn't technically an actionable violation here, but it is disruptive behaviour. Sceptre (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thanks. Aaron carass (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, actually he violated 3RR twice on Italy national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but I agree with Sceptre that this is the wrong place to post it. I do not think a 3RR-block, even if warranted, would do any good. SoWhy review me! 17:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Thunderer reported by User:Domer48 (Result: Editor final-warned)

    The Thunderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

    Involved in an edit war and reverting four different editors. Domer48'fenian' 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of 3RR warning is not that at all. Editor has not been warned that I can see. I will do so now.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, wrong diff. I've changed it to the right one. Domer48'fenian' 18:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still pointing to a warning that's weeks old now. There has been no current warning. Furthermore, I notice that yourself and User:BigDunc and a 'new' editor are now tag-teaming this editor - Alison ❤ 18:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No current warning is needed, only for the editor to be aware of the rule. I have not even edited the article since the 24 July, how am I "teaming" anyone? Domer48'fenian' 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor has been final-warned. The next revert will result in a block - Alison ❤ 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's patently obvious what's going on here but I will extend good faith and not accuse anyone of pre-planning this tag teaming effort. May I suggest again that editors opposed to the UDR just don't edit the page. If you have something constructive to add then add it but this removing of information because it doesn't fit in with an individuials own views on the Irish troubles is not what Wikipedia is about in my view. The Thunderer (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Example

    == [[User:<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->]] reported by [[User:<!-- Your NAME -->]] (Result: ) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|<!-- Place name of Article here -->}}. 

{{3RRV|<!--Place Name of 3RR "violator" here-->}} 

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 from BEFORE all the reverting started. -->

<!-- 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]

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=231744326"