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 01:08, 10 April 2008 editSeraphimblade (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,234 edits Add new report← Previous edit Revision as of 02:20, 10 April 2008 edit undoCoppertwig (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,262 edits →User:Wikiuserc reported by User:Seraphimblade (Result: ): CommentNext edit →
Line 456: Line 456:


While the reverts are not to the exact same versions, they do share similarities, and the intent is quite clear. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC) While the reverts are not to the exact same versions, they do share similarities, and the intent is quite clear. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' I give previous versions reverted to for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th reverts below. I haven't confirmed whether the first one is a revert or not.

:*The 2nd revert (at 23:59) deletes the word "'''Yet'''" (and replaces it with "'''Still'''"); the word "Yet" had just been added in the previous edit. (Previous version precisely reverted to: .)

:*The 3rd revert (at 00:05) replaces "'''bought'''" with "'''used'''" in a sentence about Naples police officers. Previous version reverted to: (A very short version with almost all content deleted, immediately reverted back to the longer version by Cluebot; doesn't contain the sentence about Naples police, therefore doesn't contain the word "bought".)
:*The 4th revert replaces the same word "'''bought'''" with "'''acquired'''"; since it's deleting "bought" which had just been restored in the previous edit, it's a revert. (Previous version reverted to: ; not reverting to precisely the same, but reverting to a version not containing the word "bought" in the sentence about Naples police.)
:(non-admin opinion) --] (]) 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


== Example == == Example ==

Revision as of 02:20, 10 April 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.


    Reporting User:Orangemarlin (Result: Malformed report. No action)

    article Ku Klux Klan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); user Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reported by User:GordonUS.

    Time reported: 03:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

    In the Ku Klux Klan article, I removed #1) wording saying a small Klan faction was violent, telling editors to show it with facts in accordance with Misplaced Pages's NPOV (http://en.wikipedia.org/NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves) and #2) removed a duplicate paragraph:

    User Guettarda reverts:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201000971&oldid=200978968

    I revert, explaining my reasoning:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201026563&oldid=201000971

    OrangeMarlin reverts:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201065356&oldid=201027380

    Accordingly, I revert:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201147303&oldid=201065356

    OrangeMarlin reverts:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201165532&oldid=201157032

    Here, I think Guettarda and Marlin think the removal of the word violent is POV, so I decide to drop it and focus on removing the duplicated paragraph. I do not revert:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201513500&oldid=201441597

    I then make a series of unrelated edits. OrangeMarlin reverts, citing Misplaced Pages NPOV:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201516397&oldid=201515610

    I tell him if he sees POV to change it but not to revert my work. I make some unrelated edits. I do not revert:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201517447&oldid=201517255

    He reverts:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201518896&oldid=201518137

    I do not revert but edit back manually, telling him to change whatever is POV:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=201519341&oldid=201518896

    I then continue working. He leaves me alone for a bit until he reverts:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=202186342&oldid=202181747

    In accordance with Misplaced Pages's reverting rules, (http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Reverting#Explain_reverts) I tell him, "Its copyediting. Please explain to me what is POV on my talk page. Please follow your advice and consult me instead of getting in rv war.":

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=202191971&oldid=202186342

    I consulted him on his talk page to explain and rudely tells me to leave:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Orangemarlin&diff=202192296&oldid=201869635

    He has reverted well over five times and this has been going on for too long.

    GordonUS (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

    I added links at the top of this report. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

    I don't see any vio. within 24h. Perhaps you should be discussing your controversal changes in the talk page beforehand. seicer | talk | contribs 03:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. In addition, there was no 3RR vio. seicer | talk | contribs 03:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    What would be the point of discussing on the talk pages when User:Orangemarlin has stated that he doesn't get involved in talk pages? (diff) DigitalC (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Reenactorjohn reported by User:Joegoodfriend (Result: Declined)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: (as 76.112.105.246 )
    • 2nd revert: (as 76.112.105.246 )
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    New editor has refused to respond to talk or to properly cite sources. User also posts dead links and frequently misspells words. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


    I sited my sorces. I am new to Misplaced Pages but I cannot stand by and just agree to let a myth be listed as historical fact on a page about a very interesting human being. The Links I posted only come up dead because I don't know how to post a link at the bottom of the patch so that the HTTP formate will work properly. I appologize for the misspelled words, dislexia does that from time to time. If any one does even a little bit of research on the subject matter by simply calling the National Parks office of the Shiloh National Battle Field park. and Asking them about John Clems involvement at the battle, they will quickly find he was never there. that is why I so adimently dispute the adition of the Shiloh portion of this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reenactorjohn (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

    I edited the article to fix the URLs and the spelling. Reenactorjohn, please consider the use of a spelling checker when you make extensive changes. Also, being right is not an excuse for an edit war. Try asking more experienced editors how to handle the situation. Go to Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests if you need pointers on how to do things, whether the question is technical or diplomatic. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    thank you Ed I appreaciate the assistance very much. Reenactorjohn (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Declined The reverts were made by two separate users so 3RR is not applicable here. If you believe that they are the same person, make a category E listing at WP:RFCU. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:206.74.61.67 reported by User:HiDrNick (Result: 1 week)


    Linkspammer just coming off a 72 hour block right back at it. Semi-protection may be appropriate as well. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 20:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

    I'd hesitate on calling him a linkspammer (although I just removed a link like some of those a few hours ago on another article), but certainly afoul of the 3rr rule again. If other mysterious IPs show up, we can consider protection. Kuru 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, I'm not hyped about protection or anything, it's just been a bit of a problem lately on this backwater article. ➪HiDrNick! 20:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    Si. I'm digging through the discussion; I doubt I'll chime in since I've taken an administrative action, but I've added it to my watchlist of obscure backwater topics so I can keep an eye on it.  :) Kuru 21:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


    User:207.68.63.144 reported by User:GhostStalker (Result: 48 hours )


    This anonymous IP keeps adding back some original research into the aforementioned article. The OR is discussed in the Talk Page, but that doesn't stop some from readding it into the article. Left 2 warnings, an OR one and a 3RR one, but it doesnt look like the IP wants to stop. GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 21:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

    Both parties blocked for 48 hours. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Dmod reported by User:Adam.J.W.C. (Result: Both blocked for 8 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    A potential sock puppet of User:The Fence is constantly removing reverenced material from the above mention article. They persist in removing the same paragraph of info that all the other sock puppets have removed in the past. Now this user is teaming up with an ip address to remove the same material. They are now adding what seems like advertising for an organization, that I don't this is suitable for wikipedia . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    I am not a sock puppet and your references are invalid. Could you PLEASE take part in the discussion on the discussion page and perhaps you will understand what we are trying to tell you? I am trying to clean this article up with correctly referenced material, please stop your malicious reverts. Dmod (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 8 hours Stifle (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:77.78.199.117 reported by User:121.222.30.189 (Result: Semi-protected)

    The user insists on inserting into the article falsehoods, and straight-up lies - and these have been added before, and all times have been rebuked. On the talk page, the user is uncivil, rude, slightly xenophobic, and shows an unwillingness to listen/compromise. The general consensus is against him, yet he has reverted not 4, but 5 times. 121.222.30.189 (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


    User:Anon18 reported by User:Gamaliel (Result: Protected)

    User has edit warred to remove quotes from the founders of the website for reasons unknown. Despite attempts to engage the user in various ways - requests that he/she use the talk page, moving the quotes from the lead to a subsection - the user has continued to revert. User has refused to discuss the issue and until his/her last two three reverts has not even used an edit summary. Gamaliel (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    Page protected Stifle (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Fadiga09 reported by User:PeeJay2K3 (Result: Article protected)


    Each revert deletes the words "Inter-Cities Fairs".

    An edit was made by User:Ultracanalla to differentiate between Valencia CF's UEFA Cup and Inter-Cities Fairs Cup triumphs. I cleaned up the edit to fix some problems with usage of English, and also edited the rest of the article to reflect what I thought was a reasonable edit, while cleaning up some other minor issues at the same time. User:Fadiga09 then reverted my edit, saying that the UEFA Cup and the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup are the same competition, and that this was determined by a discussion at some point in the past. Fadiga09 did not, however, link me to any past discussion regarding the continuity of the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup into the UEFA Cup. Even UEFA's own website does not recognise Fairs Cup titles as being equivalent to UEFA Cup titles, as they do not list Fairs Cup titles under clubs' honours. Still, Fadiga09 maintains that he was not edit warring, only that he was cleaning up the article. I shall leave it up to the admins to decide. – PeeJay 23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    I've added UTC times to the above report, changed the previous version reverted to, and noted some text which is being deleted on each revert. On the other "side" of the edit war, PeeJay2K3 and Ultracanalla each have 3 reverts in 24 hours. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Article protected one week - second choice would be to block all three users involved as all violated 3RR. Talk it out on the talk page rather than reverting please. --B (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    Addendum

    User:Scjessey reported by Andyvphil (talk) (Result: No action)

    Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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

    1. 13:23, 7 April 2008 (edit summary: "Repair article after break from consensus - see discussion(s) on talk page")
    2. 19:51, 7 April 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ - rm details that aren't directly linked to Obama, and are therefore not relevant to his BLP. Wright details should be in Jeremiah Wright")
    3. 00:21, 8 April 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 204090834 by Thegoodlocust (talk) - rv due to lack of a reliable source and POV language")
    4. 11:58, 8 April 2008 (edit summary: "er... I don't think so did. Your own website is hardly a reliable source, is it?")
    5. 12:36, 8 April 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 204199396 by Kossack4Truth (talk) - rv per WP:WEIGHT")
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Previous report:

    Result of previously reported 3RR violation was accepted offer of self-block for 24 hours. I noted another 3RR violation and was told "I don't monitor my contributions to make sure I don't violate 3RR. I just do what I think needs to be done."(see grey text above diff ]). Message that 3RR is absolute upper limit needs reinforcing, I think. Maybe another warning from an admin will do the trick. Up to you. Andyvphil (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    As I see it, Scjessey is enforcing the BLP policy by removing unsourced or poorly-sourced statements about a living person. Enforcing of BLP is specifically exempt from 3RR: see WP:3RR. Next time you do a 3RR report, remember to include the previous version reverted to. It's also useful to include in your brief description of the event a brief comment about the nature of the material being added or removed. (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    I see only one of the five reverts that might qualify for the BLP exemption (the "I don't think so did" one). That leaves 4. The material differs, but I've already described what's going on in the previous notification. I don't have time to do more, before I got to go to sleep or now when I have to go to work. But 3RR is a violation of a community standard. It is not my job to act as prosecutor when supplying notice of such a violation. Andyvphil (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    This one also looks like a BLP revert to me: "rv due to lack of a reliable source and POV language)" (at 00:21). Just my opinion. Anyway, the user hasn't edited the page since 12:36 8 April (UTC). Blocks are not used as punishment, but only to prevent problems and there doesn't seem to be a problem right at the moment. I think enough time has passed that if the user were to revert again now, that would not be a 3RR violation even if the previous reverts were a violation (which I think they weren't due to BLP exemption; I haven't even checked whether they were all reverts, since no previous version reverted to was given.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    The BLP exception reads as follows: "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons". The revert that you would characterize as a "BLP revert" removed a report that the Washington Times claimed to have found inconsistencies between Obama's political positions during his Senate and Presidential campaigns. It is not remotely "clearly libelous", and it is well cited, to a Times article. Scjessey's edit comment identifies it as a revert, and in any case examining the text as of the first revert I list shows that none of the material he is removing in the later reverts was present at that time, so that there is no question that his removals were reverts. Would think you could have figured that out for yourself, if you were of a mind to. Andyvphil (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    I think it is pretty obvious to anyone that this is not a case of edit warring. The edits took place over two days (although yes, they were within a 24-hour period) and for different reasons and editors. The reporting editor is probably retaliating to a pair of 3RR warnings I placed on his own talk page recently. In violation of WP:3RR, the reporting editor has not even warned me for a possible 3RR violation before reporting me, as can be seen from the misleading warning links listed above (the listed warning is a threat given on an article talk page last month). I expect this 3RR notice to be rejected out of hand, and the reporting editor to be warned for attempting to game the system to suit his own ends instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." What part of must not are you not getting? You have been warned. You were reported. You accepted a voluntary penalty. You did it again. I warned you but did not report you. You did it again. I reported you. An administrator who advanced bogus arguments on your behalf let you off again, without so much as a warning. But you did violate 3RR, and you have this second report of your third instance (that I know of) on your record. Don't count on being so lucky again. Andyvphil (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Looks to be a content dispute to me, and the claim that BLP violations are being reverted would take a lot of study to prove. Under these conditions I think both editors should carefully follow the 3RR limit. Since in the previous 3RR case on 17 March, Scjessey promised an administrator on this board that he would be more careful in the future, I think his actions should get more serious scrutiny now. An editor is only entitled to get a 3RR warning once, and Scjessey got one last time around. When taking any action, the closing admin should note that Andyvphil has two previous blocks for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Don't follow your first sentence at all. Of course it's a content dispute. How does that exempt Scjessey from 3RR? And, disposing of the bogus BLP claim wouldn't take much "study". Just look at the diffs. That's why I supplied them. The BLP exemption specifies "clearly". No "clearly libelous" material material will be found, or any libelous material at all, and only one (previously noted) probable poor citation. Then ask Scjessey to identify what he alleges to be clearly libelous or poorly cited. Then examine the poverty of his reply. Further note that in neither case had I actually violated 3RR. See my talk page for details. But now Scjessey has violated 3RR three times, been reported twice and has no blocks. Interesting. Andyvphil (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    In Scjessey's defense, this article has come under attack from editors who seek nothing more than to turn this BLP into something it shouldn't be, and the users who he reverted have a history of unilaterally inserting negative (and oftentimes irrelevant) material into the article (that goes against consensus and almost always ends up getting reverted by someone else anyway). In addition, this article gets profoundly more edits in a given day than the vast majority of articles on wikipedia, so I could see 4 edits of it not being particularly shocking. Also consider that while 4 reverts is said to break the rules, there seems to be no limit on how many times a user can insert new negative material into an article against the consensus of other editors, and there are most definitely editors who have attempted to do this at least 4 times in a day without being warned or punished for it (and indeed this is a conflict for which people who want to keep this BLP legitimate and respectful will lose). I encourage you to consider these things in coming to a judgment/decision as well as note that Scjessey has been a kind and respectful editor who has worked hard to improve this article and keep it from being hijacked by users with a vested interest. --Ubiq (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    No, 4 reverts is not "said" to break the rules. 4 reverts does break the rules, and you do not get an exemption for removing "negative" material. Only "clearly libelous" and "poorly cited" and the other specified exemptions. No matter how badly your finger itches to hit the "undo" button, if you've done three reverts already you need to leave it to someone else, even if admin Stifle doesn't want to say so. Andyvphil (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    also this 3rr report comes from a user who has been the subject and object of numerous admin actions and efforts. the term wikilawyer comes to my mind. user:Andyvphil has not yet posted on the talk section where 3 editors worked to solve a text problem, and because he disagrees with the solution, he vindictively does a 3rr report. Its also not the first time he has ignored BLP policy in making 3rr reports, ihe reported me in similar circumstances, and the admin's agreed with my BLP argument. Also check those Diffs very carefully, he padded my 3rr report with seperate edits to give it a greater appearance than was actually there. He seems to advocate use of the "3 edits of page text" view of 3rr and not the seemingly more common "3 edits on disputed text" which is what i am used to. And he only does this selectively, so its not like editors have a regular ability to see what his standards are, which is important on such a fast moving page.
    And the idea the Scjessey engages in "edit warfare" is ridiculous to anyone who looks at the page regularly (except apparently the reporting user apparently)... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    You were blocked. The admin who blocked you explained why your BLP claim was bogus and refused to unblock you. Another admin then lifted your block, an action he declined to defend when challenged to do so. If your conclusion from that experience was that your exceeding 3RR was justified and I was in the wrong to report you (or "childish", as Scjessey would have it)... well the actions of Jayron32 and Stifle might lead you to that error, but that doesn't reflect well on them. Andyvphil (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Unbelievable. In what way is #5 a BLP-exempt edit? The text removed is as follows:

    In the wake of the Wright controversy, the New York Times has reported that support for Obama has softened among Democratic voters at a critical moment in the primary process:

    Senator Barack Obama’s support among Democrats nationally has softened over the last month, particularly among men and upper-income voters, as voters have taken a slightly less positive view of him ... Mr. Obama’s favorability rating among Democratic primary voters has dropped seven percentage points, to 62 percent, since the last Times/CBS News survey, in late February. While that figure is by any measure high, the decline came in a month during which he endured withering attacks from Mrs. Clinton and responded to reports that his former pastor had made politically inflammatory statements from his church’s pulpit in Chicago. ... Of those respondents who said they had heard about the controversy involving Mr. Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., 36 percent of the general electorate said it made them look less favorably on Mr. Obama.
    Again, it is not remotely libelous, and largely consists of a quote from a RS (the NY Times) which is properly cited. The edit comment again self-identifies the revert as a revert, and, again, the first dif does show a prior text not containing any of the material Scjessey later removes, making clear that his removals are reverts. Andyvphil (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • My mistake, I meant 3 and 4. Also #1 is not clearly a revert. Can you please indicate which exact previous version that the article matches after edit #1? Stifle (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    No.3 is no more a BLP-exempt revert than #5. It's the citation of the Washington Times that I reply to Coppertwig about above. Not libelous, and well-cited.
    Thast there should be any difficulty seeing that #1 is a revert is a little hard to understand, but this diff shows that what Scjessey did was undo the three immediately preceeding edits. Andyvphil (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'd like to point out that this stems from an ongoing content dispute (see Talk:Barack Obama) that resulted in me giving User:Andyvphil a polite 3RR warning. He is trying to use this procedure as some sort of "retaliatory strike" to get me temporarily blocked by lumping together a collection of largely unrelated edits that took place over 2 days. Meanwhile, over 24 hours have passed since the last listed reversion, rendering this report rather "stale" in any case. Please don't let Andy's personal dislike of me interfere with my normal functioning as a diligent, active Wikipedian. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, I didn't ask that you be blocked. I asked that you be warned in much stronger terms than you had before. "Maybe another warning from an admin will do the trick." Not that you didn't deserve to be blocked. Andyvphil (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Then shouldn't the result in the header be changed from "no action" to "warning"? Andyvphil (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    ...though, for the record, calling this a "warning" is stretching the word beyond recognition. Andyvphil (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Camptown reported by User:Herunar (Result: 8 hours both parties)

    • Previous version reverted to: 16:17, 8 April 2008 Note: there are many intermediate changes. There are two additions I made, both reverted. One is reverted 4 times and the other 3 times with a total of 5 edits.

    The user has been warned many times in the past and has been blocked once.

    I made a referenced addition to the article and provided another reference in the edit summary about the use of the word "independent". I did not feel necessary to include this reference (this, in Chinese) since it is hardly related to the article, and the assertations themselves are made in the article page. User Camptown, who has a long history of getting into edit wars, removed my additions with the incivil edit summary "rm nonsense" twice, after which I attempted to discuss with him. He nonetheless reverted again, even after I kindly warned him about his past violations of 3RR. In this case, I felt that my reverts of his edits are justified as the content is well sourced (one could consider his reverts vandalism, though I would not say so) and I have already opened a discussion on the talk page, to which he had not responded when he made his 3rd, 4th and 5th revert. I have no history of edit-warring. As a side-topic, I found a very racially charged comment by the user which should require administrators' attention. Thanks. The user is notified. Herunar (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    A further note: I browsed through the user's contributions and while the user has often violated fundamental Misplaced Pages principles, especially in disputes, I could also see an immense contribution to Misplaced Pages with many additions to DYK and news. Administrators, if they decide to block Camptown, should take into consideration his prolific editing and reduce the time of the block. Herunar (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    User:Herunar is resorting to pure vandalism when is adding nonsense speculations with clearly bogus references in an article covering a most sensitive subject. There is further elaboration about my legitimate revisions on the talk page.--Camptown (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:148.220.24.155 reported by User:Rainrem (Result: Vandalism, page protected)


    etc. just look at the edit history


    He's vandalising the article. I don't know where else to report. I think the page should be protected at least for a while because his IP changes each time and/or he's using anonymous proxies Rainrem (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    Simple vandalism by a dynamic IP. Page semi-protected for 2 weeks. For future reference, you'll get a faster response at WP:AIV or WP:RFPP. CIreland (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for the protection and your help! Rainrem (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:64.118.111.137 reported by User:Ultramarine (Result: IP blocked 24 hrs)

    Complete reverts ignoring many other editors.Ultramarine (talk)

    The IP editor continues to edit-war - please take action. John Smith's (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours IP blocked for 24 hours for blatant edit warring. --barneca (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Lukeatomic reported by User:Dominik92 (Result: 48 hours)

    article Pilot (Arrested Development episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Lukeatomic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (headers added. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

    first revert second revert, third revert and fourth revert. on Pilot (Arrested Development episode) and also Bringing Up Buster. The Dominator (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

    OK, withdraw, user has been blocked. The Dominator (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hoursToddst1 (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:76.102.72.153 reported by User:Dance With The Devil (Result: Semi-protected)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 03:54

    Continuing the edit war State terrorism and the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that started earlier today. Dance With The Devil (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    Agree. Massive edit warring by IP single purpose accounts during the last few hours. Previous IP reverter blocked for 3RR after nine reverts. This is an obvious sock/meatpuppet who continue with exactly the same revert. Semi-protection needed.Ultramarine (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think this IP editor is related to the previous one. This one has a history of productive, good edits to the article, and doing an IP trace, appear to be from different areas. So lets not make negative associations. This user appears to have accidently gone over 3RR for the first time--but other users should be be doing 3 reverts either--esp. for trying to force making massive against consensus. I think the IP user should self revert in principal, and then another editor such as myself can revert for him. No one should edit war much less go over 3R, even if they are acting correctly otherwise.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:24.193.80.215 reported by User:Cigraphix (Result: 24 hrs)


    User:24.193.80.215 returns to article Sonic the Hedgehog (character) often to change a date from "present" to "2008", has reverted 5 times between 15:28, 8 April 2008 and 13:56, 9 April 2008, see user's contributions Special:Contributions/24.193.80.215. (Edit: I have a -4:00 time difference from UTC put into my Preferences if that matters with the edit times) Cigraphix (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


    User:Wikkibobby reported by User:Vinh1313 (Result: 24hrs )


    Wikkibobby is a suspected sockpuppet of Xhy20 who has been involved in an edit war on the Luscious Lopez article for the past two days. His suspected ip was also warned for 3RR on 22:18, 8 April 2008 by an admin. Wikkibobby has reverted an administrator many times during this edit war. He has behaved in an uncivil manner in the edit summaries. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

    User:Wikiuserc reported by User:Seraphimblade (Result: )

    While the reverts are not to the exact same versions, they do share similarities, and the intent is quite clear. Seraphimblade 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: I give previous versions reverted to for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th reverts below. I haven't confirmed whether the first one is a revert or not.
    • The 2nd revert (at 23:59) deletes the word "Yet" (and replaces it with "Still"); the word "Yet" had just been added in the previous edit. (Previous version precisely reverted to: 23:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC).)
    • The 3rd revert (at 00:05) replaces "bought" with "used" in a sentence about Naples police officers. Previous version reverted to: 01:06, 8 February 2008 (A very short version with almost all content deleted, immediately reverted back to the longer version by Cluebot; doesn't contain the sentence about Naples police, therefore doesn't contain the word "bought".)
    • The 4th revert replaces the same word "bought" with "acquired"; since it's deleting "bought" which had just been restored in the previous edit, it's a revert. (Previous version reverted to: 00:05, 10 April 2008; not reverting to precisely the same, but reverting to a version not containing the word "bought" in the sentence about Naples police.)
    (non-admin opinion) --Coppertwig (talk) 02:20, 10 April 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 or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide 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

    1. "Obama's Support Softens in Poll, Suggesting a Peak Has Passed". The New York Times. 2008-04-04. Retrieved 2008-04-08.
    Categories: