Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:50, 20 March 2008 editKerotan (talk | contribs)Rollbackers7,780 edits →User:64.25.184.27 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:24 hours ): -fixed my comment← Previous edit Revision as of 03:01, 20 March 2008 edit undoMattisse (talk | contribs)78,542 edits →User:Redthoreau reported by User:Mattisse (Result: ): reply to RedthoreauNext edit →
Line 494: Line 494:


::Matisse takes advantage of the fact that he is better versed in Wiki reporting/manipulation of policy, but I am 100 % sure that if I have violated 3RR (which I dispute) then he has as well in the same article. He is notorious for presenting situations out of context and him and "truth" constantly appear to be distant enemies. I would only ask any administrator to view the overall situation and not the snippets of what he will selectively show you. I have had the unfortunate pleasure of being harassed by him for quite some time now, and each time I only reply back with the exact same thing he sends to me. I have faith that the moderators of wikipedia will be able to see this situation for what it is, and not what he will present it to be. ] (] TR 02:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::Matisse takes advantage of the fact that he is better versed in Wiki reporting/manipulation of policy, but I am 100 % sure that if I have violated 3RR (which I dispute) then he has as well in the same article. He is notorious for presenting situations out of context and him and "truth" constantly appear to be distant enemies. I would only ask any administrator to view the overall situation and not the snippets of what he will selectively show you. I have had the unfortunate pleasure of being harassed by him for quite some time now, and each time I only reply back with the exact same thing he sends to me. I have faith that the moderators of wikipedia will be able to see this situation for what it is, and not what he will present it to be. ] (] TR 02:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

::Not well versed enough to file this complaint correctly. This one is malformed. I have never succeed in filing any 3RR complaint. By the way, feel free to stop following me around any time. ] (]) 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result:24 hours ) == == ] reported by ] (Result:24 hours ) ==

Revision as of 03:01, 20 March 2008

Template:Moveprotected

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    Violations

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


    User:Piotrus reported by User:M.K (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning: contributor was already blocked by admin due to violation of 3RR

    This is really disrupting. Another contributor involved in edit warring, that is most troubling in this case that particular contributor not even changing article version which is contested, but also trying to distort cited publications consistently; despite many pleas to stop. M.K. (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Update another article is affected Simonas Daukantas . Wondering how long this edit warring by particular contributor will lasts? M.K. (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    Decision: Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    I noticed your decision was revoked by User:Zscout370‎. You can see User talk:Zscout370‎ for the details. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, Piotrus contacted me and told me that he was too experienced for the 3RR rules to apply to him and that he had managed to convince an admin to unblock him at IRC, and then lectured me on the risk of being de-admined and told me that I was lucky he had woken up in good mood. I do note that the admin who unblocked him still felt that he had violated 3RR, but felt that other parties had too (not really a reason to unblock). I checked the talk page, but couldn't find the discussion. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah ... indeedie. At least that wasn't the unblocking rationale. ;) Not the best of situations. The unblock and process seem to have made a few people unhappy. Maybe it's time to update the unblocking guidelines on Misplaced Pages:Unblock#Unblocking, because they are obviously way out of line with current practice. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    NOTE Another user has raised this issue at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Piotrus_incident:_policy_corrections_needed_either_way. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Dance With The Devil reported by User:Supergreenred (Result:)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Comment: I'm not a party to the edit warring, but I am a party to discussing these very changes on the talk page, which is currently a matter of unresolved dispute. Saying that the anon editor was removing things without consensus is not exactly right since Ultramarine added that material without consensus, and I objected. Specifically, to using The Weekly Standard to make claims of historical facts on a history article. I think an easy compromise would be to find alternative sources for the same claims, if they are valid. In any case, its very bad to edit war and not discuss any of these issues on the talk page. It makes it look that your reverting is a knee jerk support of Ultramarines contentious and problematic additions. I also note that you were edit warring on the American Terrorism article as well, with 3 reverts, at least. I think a cool down period is a good idea. Now having said that, I think Dance with the Devil is generally a good editor so maybe just a warning would be best. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. He seems to acknowledge that he needed to cool down, and that is good enough for me.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    Giovanni33 claims regarding the content dispute is false. See the talk page. Agreed that this report by Supergreenred is suspicious. This is the first action ever taken by Supergreenred who first appeared today. Agree that Dance With The Devil is a good editor who would self-revert if he could. Best action would probably be to semi-protect the page.Ultramarine (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed with semi-protection but its absurd to deny this is a content dispute. A quick glance at the talk page shows that. This is not the board for raises suspicions on editors motives, appearances, etc, either. Its for the 3RR rule. Its a wall we are not supposed to cross over. Period. A firm warning is in order at the very least. And this goes for you too, as you actually provoke edit wars all the time UltraMarine, by almost never respecting the consensus process. This is not understatement, either.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Mattelot reported by User:Ehheh (Result:No violation )


    Single purpose account. Has been reinserting POV language into this article for a long time now. Ehheh (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    Each of you has only reverted 3 times in 24 hours, please don't revert again, either of you. I've issued warnings as well. Keilana| 19:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    I did 3, he did four - now up to five. - Ehheh (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:70.104.89.107 reported by User:GreenJoe (Result:No violation )

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    He keeps re-adding himself to the list. GreenJoe 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    He hasn't reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours. No violation. Keilana| 19:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:J Greb reported by User:Rockfang (Result: warned )

    • Previous version reverted to: 12:08pm


    The above times are in the US Pacific time zone. This started with me tagging an image Moshikal uploaded as being fair use disputed here. At that time, I noticed his talk page was extremely long. I decided to help him out and add archiving to his talk page here. After which, I informed him of it here. I was then repeatedly reverted (and did reverts myself) as shown above. The situation was discussed both on my talk page and and J Greb's talk page. I have since stopped because I do not want to break the 3RR policy. I would hope this doesn't go ignored because this user is an admin. Rockfang (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    I've left a note at the User's talk page. That said, it's rather bad form (to the point of being disruptive) to remove image upload warnings before the user has noted that they have seen them. I understand being bold, but to continuously revert without discussion? How about let the user respond? I see by their contributions that they are an active user. As for J Greb's actions, he's a new admin, else, he probably would have (as I likely would have) reverted you and protected the talk page after your second reversion. (Which is annoying, personally, because it's obnoxious to force an admin to protect someone else's talk page. That's disruptive.) See WP:BRD, and m:The Wrong Version, among other pages, for more information. If archiving this user's talk page is of such vital import to you, then I suggest that you at least begin a dialogue with the user. I hope this clarifies. - jc37 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    I understand what you are saying. If Moshikal would have reverted my change I would have not put the archiving back on. And I do understand that waiting for a reply from Moshikal would have been better. That being said, J Greb still broke the 3RR which is still the issue being addressed here. Him being a new admin doesn't excuse him from following policy.--Rockfang (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps, but neither does it you for attempting to (let's presume unknowingly) being disruptive. It's one of J Greb's responsibilities as an admin to attempt to prevent disruption. So, if I read your comments correctly, you want him blocked for restoring the talk page from your disruptive actions? I doubt you'll get much traction from anyone on that. Especially when he could just have easily protected the page and blocked you. You are, of course, welcome to see if you find any supporters to this wikilawyering, but I'd respectfully suggest dropping it before someone less polite than I comments or, possibly even takes action, in a way that you might not appreciate. I'll end with a quote from the top of this page:
    • "Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked. It is up to the administrator's discretion whether to take action. Conversely, just because someone has not violated the 3RR does not mean that they will not be blocked. Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day." - jc37 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    I never stated I want J Greb to be blocked. The thing is, he broke a wikipedia policy and I don't want it to go unnoticed. As long as an uninvolved admin makes a decision on this, I'm fine with it. Either way.--Rockfang (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Warned – Actually, if I was going to block anyone it would be the reporter, because I genuinely understand why someone would repeatedly revert in this case, as it involves a pretty big change to a person's talk page, which is usually the only way we can get in touch with users. However, I truly believe that both editors were acting in good faith, and it wasn't too ridiculous of a violation (i.e., it only just barely broke 3RR and there weren't personal attacks or whatnot). Though, both editors should consider this their only warning. Should something like this present itself again, I would suggest going directly to the administrators' noticeboard to ask for a third opinion instead of revert warring, as it will bring about faster and more definitive results.
    While I'm on the topic, a word of advice: do not add/remove anything automated to anyone else's user/user talk pages without them asking you to do so. Sure, they don't own the pages, but it's common courtesy to avoid doing anything that might, on the off chance, provoke the user. Frequently, people tend to view it as an intrusion, much like it would be if you were to get on someone's computer and rearrange their desktop icons. Even though it might look/work better, and even if the person might just keep it anyway to avoid a confrontation, they may silently resent it. So, while it may be well-intentioned, it is our custom to pretty much leave people to do their own thing on their user and talk pages, just so long as they aren't doing something that conflicts with our other policies. This is even more important when it comes to stuff like bots, archiving, and talk pages, as like I said, talk pages are usually the only way of contacting a user until they confirm their email; so, automatically making threads "disappear" will be particularly confusing to newcomers.
    Thus, it's always best to avoid being bold when it comes to the user space. First ask the user politely, and 9 times out of 10 they will be eager to let you set up the bot since it's kind of cool and reduces the amount of crap they have to do themselves. :P Long story short, of all of the places to have an edit war, avoid having one in the user space, as it almost always results in bad things happening— whether it be to those involved in the edit war or the user on whose page it is done. --slakr 17:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:FCBarsalona reported by User:McTools (Result: protected)


    This article should be protected, I requested protection but was ignored.--mCtOOls 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:69.138.133.89 reported by User:edgarde (Result: already blocked)

    Anon removes unflattering information from BLP, especially that pertaining to a recent (and sourced) drug bust. (Also reverts to formatting that is contrary to WP:MOS, especially unnecessary capitalization.) This appears to be the same editor who under another IP address performed similar sanitizing a few weeks ago. Arguments for these edits are they are "defamatory" and "inappropriate". These statements are via Edit summary only; will not discuss on Talk page despite repeated invitations. edg ☺ ☭ 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    In a new development, we now have some Talk page discussion. However, this is followed by a 5th revert. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:68.121.110.57 reported by User:Operation Spooner (Result: semi-protected)


    • 3RR warning on his user discussion page under slightly different IP (68.124.66.87):

    Deleting templates that are asking for sources. Operation Spooner (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Page protected – I semi-ed the page, since it looks like the dude's IP just keeps changing and he'll continue on revert warring. Feel free to update this if something changes. --slakr 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Mattelot reported by User:Eruhildo (Result: 24 hours )


    See my comment on the article's talk page. --Eruhildo (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    Result: - I have blocked User:Mattelot for 24 hours. Scarian 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Desione reported by User:Fowler&fowler (Result: 55 hours )


    four reverts in less than 24 hours on Company rule in India:

    I left a note on his talk page, but he seems unrepentant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    User: Scjessey reported by User:Andyvphil (Result: warned; voluntary non-editing of article for next 24 hours )


    • 1st revert: 14:07, 16 March 2008 "m (rv vandalism and POV - see talk page)"
    • 2nd revert: 02:47, 17 March 2008 "m (rv to last version that made any sense at all)"
    • 3rd revert: 12:27, 17 March 2008 "m (rv numerous POV, false statements. Please seek consensus on the talk page before destroying a featured article)"
    • 4th revert: 12:40, 17 March 2008 "m (Undid revision 198842236 by Realist2 (talk) - rv again. Please seek consensus on talk page)"
    • 5th revert: 13:06, 17 March 2008 "m (fix broken, inaccurate, POV stuff. Please seek consensus for ANY changes. See most recent discussion on talk page.)"


    Scjessey is currently the most active and least cautious of a group of editors who are striving to retain ownership of what is now, by a factor of more than two, the most visited page on Misplaced Pages. Rather than, as Dispute Resolution policy calls for, balancing what they view as "negative material" on the subject of the article (such as the ADA(!) ratings of Barack Obama, or any mention of his problem, now all over the news, with his pastor's sermons) with their own "side of the story"WP:DR, they demand prior "consensus" to any edit, which consensus they withold without engaging in much meaningful discussion or any compromise. Now, Scjessey is engaging in mass unconsidered reverts of work by multiple editors, sometimes with misleading edit summarys (most obviously, "rv vandalism") and falsely marking his reverts as minor. He's restoring outright errors (the mistitling of the pronunciation cite and the misattribution and misquotation of Soetoro-Ng spring to mind) and deleting "pro-Obama" material (the community-organizing info and the coming back to Chicago to do voter registration when he could probably have gotten a Supreme Court clerkship are obvious examples) that I'm sure he would be quite happy with if he actually looked at it, as well as the NPOV stuff he doesn't want to see. And he's violated 3RR. Violated 4RR, actually. I warned him to self-revert but he's only consented to revert "as much as he can". Not good enough, I think. Andyvphil (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    Completely agree, I asked him to user the discussion page or even to use neutrality tags if he had a serious concern about pov but rather reverted the whole lot. He has a fundamental liberal bias (much like the media) (hey im liberal, but i can spot bias a mile off), and there seems to be a pattern where negative info is reverted instantly. Realist2 (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    It is true that it appears I have violated the three-revert rule. I will accept a temporary block if an administrator deems this appropriate. I believe that even a cursory investigation of my editing history, taken into context with the ongoing discussion at Talk:Barack Obama will offer some justification for my behavior; nevertheless, I am prepared to voluntarily cease editing the Barack Obama article for 24 hours as a good faith gesture. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    Warned – Cool, then no block is needed, just so long as you stay clear of the article for the next 24 hours. :P Just be sure to keep using the talk page to try to avoid this in the future. Cheers =) --slakr 18:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Mrbelial reported by User:Moonriddengirl (Result: 31 hours)

    (Also, less formally: 23:16, 5 March 2008)

    See also earlier, additional reverts:

    User is obviously attempting to game the system by remaining under the 3RR threshold in spite of warnings that doing so may still result in a block. This editor, brought to my attention yesterday on my talk page by an editor with whom I have at most had tangential dealings, is by the evidence of his talk page resisting good faith efforts of other contributors to reach consensus. He seems to have stopped responding to such efforts on February 25th, based on the article's talk page. (Just to note: The article was protected on March 5th for "heavy vandalism" by AndonicO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) following repeated insertion of this same material by anonymous IPs. The question of sock puppetry has been raised with this user, who has neither confirmed nor denied.) Though as an admin I am inclined to follow WP:3RR and block for edit warring in spite of the >24 hour time, I have currently no experience with 3RR matters and would appreciate review by admins with more experience in this area. Moonriddengirl 15:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours – Although this isn't a three-revert rule kind of thing, it definitely falls under disruptive editing, as the user fails to seek consensus, multiple editors feel the article should not reflect the editor's changes, and he has continuously reverted over a long period of time despite that opposition. --slakr 18:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:TeerGrub reported by User:GreenJoe (Result: 31 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 0th revert:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    He seem to be involved in a revert war and won't listen to reason. GreenJoe 23:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours – it's pretty clear this person knows about 3RR/not edit warring given his first edit under this account. --slakr 01:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    Please also keep an eye on 204.62.193.69 and 70.176.235.154. Based on contribution patterns, comments, and language almost identical to post on another forum (http://www.nnseek.com/e/news.admin.netabuse.email/), it appears these may all be the same person with an agenda that is something other than encyclopedic. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    Oops, better URL to newsgroup post that appears linked to TeerGrub/204.62.193.69/70.176.235.154 is http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.email/browse_thread/thread/de72d8d57db0da17/ea032d836db105b3#ea032d836db105b3 Thirdbeach (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Sumerophile reported by User:Til Eulenspiegel (Result: No action)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    Repeat offender, resumed edit warring with 3 other editors almost as soon as the article was unlocked from the last go-round. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    72 hours, albeit reluctantly, given the fact the reporter is equally bad. Moreschi (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Hang on a sec, am I on crack? Sumerophile was reverting Ararat arev, that doesn't count towards 3RR! Unblocked ASAP. Moreschi (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    What in the world is "Ararat arev"? Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 13:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Ararat arev. This guy isn't exactly low-profile. Moreschi (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:157.228.118.212 reported by User:realtycoon (Result:31 hours, then unblocked)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    A short explanation of the incident. Greek POV pushing by 157.228.118.212. Remove reference to Greek and save for the article. This is a controversial issue Realtycoon (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    The diffs are wrong, but I looked at the history of the article in question, and it is a violation. Blocked for 31 hours; IP address and no creation blocks. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    My apologies, this is the first time using this tool. I didn't complete the diffs properly. Thanks for your prompt response. Realtycoon (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    HE is still at it. Using the IP address of 157.228.98.181 Realtycoon (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    I am sorry I was quite busy and I have seen the case just today.
    User:Realtycoon has started removing soundly sourced material from the article, for the very first time, on 21st of February here . He did so without any discussion, edit summary and consensus whatsoever. That was his very first edit under this alias. Many of his/her contributions are contagious and involve tactics as POV-tag-warring of well established articles (see , ). For the specific case he claimed that he can provide sources of some kind but the only thing that he did, so far, is misusing WP processes, gaming the system, being uncivil (shouting insults as "Vandal" etc). The ethno-linguistic attribution is well sourced (as seen in its main article) and widely accepted by the academic community. Please also follow the discussion here User_talk:Bearian#Blocking_of_User:157.228.118.212. ----157.228.98.181 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    It's a controversial issue, there are many sources that I just don't have the time to go into. There is a main article that goes into the details of his ethnicity. Alexander the Great Macedonian King is Correct. But, I think it's best to leave it out of the Disambiguation page! Realtycoon (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Also, there is a consensus over this. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Macedonian_language_naming_dispute#Unencyclopedic I'm not the only one who thinks this. I'm just trying to keep the Greek POV out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realtycoon (talk • contribs) 15:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Also, if you want to get all "Wiki-Lawyer" on me, you are the one who is going around your BAN by using another IP! Realtycoon (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Folks, I have a problem here, as this discussion has devolved onto my talk page at User_talk:Bearian#Blocking_of_User:157.228.118.212. What should I do? Bearian (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    I have decided to unblock, as there was no technical violation of WP:3RR. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    What about his block evading? POV pushing? Realtycoon (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:HAl reported by User:Kilz (Result: Incomplete)


    But User:HAl has past knowlage of the rule.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: warring
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    A short explanation of the incident. Kilz (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Hal has been engaged in edit warring. He is reverting good faith edits by me that included a complete rewrite of a section. He is removing dates and {{fact}} tags. Hal has been warned about this behavior multiple times and has been banned for it. Yet after discussing the edits, requesting references and doing everything to explain my point, Hal just reverts. He may not have crossed the 3rd revert. But he is clearly breaking the spirit of the rule. Kilz (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    Actually anybody can should notice that i made the original edit to add infomation on the positive notes (citations by Updegrove and Webbink) on OSP licensing in the Office Open XML article. That is an original cited edit and not a revert. You have been the one removing those edits several times. If anything you are the one editwarring. I hope you reported yourself! Anybvody can easily spot that in what yuo can 1st revert and 2nd revert i actually have made original edits wadded cited information on OSP licensing. However you have been removing that information several times. I agree that i have several times removed some dates but that is because the dates are already part of the citations in the same section. user:Kilz was adding this unnescesary dates in the article that were redundant to the dates in the citations. However user:Kilz has been removing my original cited edits several times and inparticular the quote of Red Hat's Mark Webbink on OSP licensing. If the literal comments of RedHat are no longer relevant in a section about compatiblity with OSS licensing then what quotes are? I think the edit history of user:Kilz shows a months long list of entirely and exclusivly edits negative on Office open XML and Standardization of Office Open XML with for instance user:WalterGR. I don't think removed redundant dates is edit warring however I think removing original citations of relevant sources is. And that is exactly what user:Kilz has been doing. hAl (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    If the admins would look at the reference edit "Previous version reverted to:" and compare it to the last revert of Hal's you will see they are almost exactly alike. Even though I have made numerous edits and changes. Hal has wipped them out. In an effort to make the article as he wants it. Not working with others , but enforcing his will. Even after being told he has original research problems, that his sources in other articles said thier quotes were taken out of context, and adding dates. None of the changes are there. He has ignored an attemptr to talk about the issue and multiple edits to try and work it out. His excuse? Im at fault because I added and removed things he added. Kilz (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    Note to admins - It's certainly edit warring between the two users but I can't see a clear cut 3RR violation. Scarian 09:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 13:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Pietervhuis reported by User:Miyokan (Result: 72 hours )


    Repeat offender, user has been blocked twice before for edit warring.

    3RR violation.Miyokan (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    Not a 3RR violation per se as the last 3 diffs are a different dispute from the first. But none-the-less I have blocked for 72 hours for edit warring. Could all parties involved please use discussion to resolve disagreements, please. Scarian 09:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:157.228.118.212 reported by User:realtycoon (Result:31 hours ) Three-revert rule violation on Template:Alexander the Great (disambiguation). 157.228.118.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Previous version reverted to:


    1st revert: DIFFTIME 2nd revert: DIFFTIME 3rd revert: DIFFTIME 4th revert: DIFFTIME Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME A short explanation of the incident. Greek POV pushing by 157.228.118.212. Remove reference to Greek and save for the article. This is a controversial issue Realtycoon (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    The diffs are wrong, but I looked at the history of the article in question, and it is a violation. Blocked for 31 hours; IP address and no creation blocks. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC) My apologies, this is the first time using this tool. I didn't complete the diffs properly. Thanks for your prompt response. Realtycoon (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    This guy is still at it. He is continuing to revert using 157.228.98.181 Realtycoon (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Redthoreau reported by User:Mattisse (Result: )


    I have been tolerant of this person over and over, explained the 3RR to him etc. He will not stop. Mattisse (Talk) 01:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    Poorly formed report. WP:3RR says "Consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule." All but one of the above edits were carried out in the same one long set of consecutive edits by a single editor, with no other edits by any other editor in between. Therefore, they would (generally) all (except one) count as at most one revert for purposes of this rule. Also, the edits are not listed in order of time, making it more confusing. There were other earlier edits, not listed above, still within the same 24-hour period, which may or may not have been reverts. (non-admin opinion). --Coppertwig (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    Matisse takes advantage of the fact that he is better versed in Wiki reporting/manipulation of policy, but I am 100 % sure that if I have violated 3RR (which I dispute) then he has as well in the same article. He is notorious for presenting situations out of context and him and "truth" constantly appear to be distant enemies. I would only ask any administrator to view the overall situation and not the snippets of what he will selectively show you. I have had the unfortunate pleasure of being harassed by him for quite some time now, and each time I only reply back with the exact same thing he sends to me. I have faith that the moderators of wikipedia will be able to see this situation for what it is, and not what he will present it to be. Redthoreau (talk TR 02:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    Not well versed enough to file this complaint correctly. This one is malformed. I have never succeed in filing any 3RR complaint. By the way, feel free to stop following me around any time. Mattisse (Talk) 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:64.25.184.27 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result:24 hours )

    • Previous version reverted to: (added on each revert)


    There was a revert between #1 and #2, but I can't quite get the diffs to line up

    Comment: Regardless of whether the edits are justified as NPOV, which I dispute, they are not fixing BLP violations, so do not have an exemption from 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: It seems rather odd to me that QuackGuru came into this revert war all of a sudden. Until hard evidence comes up in the form of more contributions I am going to hold back from a RFCU--Kerotan Have a nice day :) 02:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    24 hour block. Vsmith (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- 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: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Categories: