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 22:00, 3 September 2006 editKhoikhoi (talk | contribs)71,605 edits move down← Previous edit Revision as of 01:27, 4 September 2006 edit undoSplash (talk | contribs)33,425 edits →[] reported by User:[] (Result:): go awayNext edit →
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:


Please place new reports '''at the bottom'''. Please place new reports '''at the bottom'''.




===] reported by User:] (Result:)=== ===] reported by User:] (Result:)===
Line 810: Line 812:
'''Comments:''' '''Comments:'''
This user has attempted to remove cited information from Misplaced Pages and has violated the Three-Revert Rule in the process. -- ] 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC) This user has attempted to remove cited information from Misplaced Pages and has violated the Three-Revert Rule in the process. -- ] 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

===] reported by User:] (Result:go away)===

] violation on

{{Article|ATA Airlines}}. {{3RR|CFIF}}:

* Previous version reverted to:


* 1st revert:
* 2nd revert:
* 3rd revert:
* 4th revert:

Time report made: ] 01:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:You're using the page to stage an attack on CFIF is what it is. I'm going to block you instead, have advised CFIF to stop, semi-protected the article and am certainly not going to hand you a victory of a block on CFIF given your trolling. -] - ] 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


==Copy-paste-edit this for a new report== ==Copy-paste-edit this for a new report==

Revision as of 01:27, 4 September 2006

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)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links


    Violations

    Please place new reports at the bottom.


    User:24.168.108.195 reported by User:Bobblehead (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    United States House elections, 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.168.108.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The user does not appear to understand that content that you do not agree with is not vandalism and thus removal of the information is not exempt from 3RR. This is shown by the user's comments here. So even if a block is not in order, a warning regarding the removal of the content not meeting preventing vandalism would be great. --Bobblehead 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

    User:Zello reported by User:PANONIAN 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Bač (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:I disagree that I broke the 3RR. We were in the middle of a content dispute where my well sourced contribution was deleted by Panonian 3 times. After that an anonymous user appeared from the nowhere with 0 edit history and deleted the disputed section. There were only 2 possibilites for me: 1, a new vandal appeared or 2, Panonian are using a sockpuppet to evade the 3RR. I hoped that only a vandal a not the later so I reverted. The anonymous user didn't communicated on the talk page where the dispute was going. Zello 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    First of all, the anonymous user was not a vandal (the content dispute is not a vandalism). He did not agreed with your edits to the article, so he reverted you, and you reverted back, so you broke 3rr. Second, the anonymous user was not my sockpuppet (you can check my IP adress, I have a statical one), but anyway he is somebody whom I know and who edit Misplaced Pages from time to time. Interestingly, another anonymous IP appeared that reverted article to last version by Zello: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ba%C4%8D&diff=73129685&oldid=73129095 Anyway, the fact is that Zello violated 3rr, and that he should be blocked for 24 hours. PANONIAN (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Calling a friend from IRC who hasn't got any user name and edit history IS evading the 3RR from your side. He wasn't another independent wikipedia user. Zello 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    ps. Also I ask a Checkuser about that anonymous user who appeared after that incident, because I would like to prove that he is not my sockpuppet. Zello 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Well, I did not called him. As I said, he edit Misplaced Pages, and had a registered nick (I cannot say who he is, he forbid that to me), and we both hang on irc chat too. He also watch my Wiki contributions (like you do, by the way), so he saw that I have a problems with "certain user" and became involved in whole story. That however does not change the fact that you reverted four times. PANONIAN (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Why he didn't used his user name then? An anon who deletes a sourced section without any comment and 0 edit history is only a vandal. And 3RR is not applied to vandalism. Zello 00:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Well, Greater Hungarian nationalist propaganda that you want to impose here is certainly not "sourced section". Besides, you did not reverted his second edit where he removed entire section (which I proposed on the talk page by the way), but you reverted his first edit that was only content dispute. As for why he didn't used his user name, let say that he has his reasons (he do not want to be seen involved in such content disputes), but as I say, I cannot reveal his identity even if that mean that you will not be blocked for 3rr. :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Don't present here your accusations about the dispute itself because that's not the right place. You can call it anything, it was relevant info backed by two reliable sources. Zello 01:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Well, but is it claim that "it was relevant info backed by two reliable sources" an example of talking about the dispute itself? :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    And by the way, Zello, this is clearly your sockpuppet (he also reverted my edit in Árpád dynasty article, how interesting): http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=195.56.12.45 PANONIAN (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    I noticed, I'm not able to do anything with him, he followed my contribs. I already asked for Checkuser here. Your "friend" appeared also under a new nick... Zello 02:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    I didn't have to watch your contribs because we disputed about the same question on the talk page of another article. After I found sources in that dispute I decided to add this new information to the town-article.

    User:Deepthroat123 reported by User:Mmx1 (Result:24 hour block)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Jesse Macbeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Deepthroat123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Whoops; posted the template but didn't include the brackets and it wasn't corrected until 19:13. However, I'd like to note that the user is a suspected sock of User:Jessefriend (I reported the sock), and between User:Jessefriend, User:Deepthroat123, and the IP User:66.11.160.31, have made the revert over 12 times in the last 24 hours - with no discussion. Sockpuppetry case at Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jessefriend.


    Time report made: 00:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Jessefriend reported by User:Mmx1 (Result:Blocked indefinitely as vandalism only account.)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Jesse Macbeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jessefriend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 01:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Justforasecond reported by User:Humus sapiens (Result:48 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Jews for Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Justforasecond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 01:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: The user misunderstands WP:VANDAL after numerous warnings by others. ←Humus sapiens 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    While the warning above came after the 4th revert, user has been blocked 4 times previously for 3rr, once for a month, so its 48 hours. --heah 05:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Mathslover reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result:8hour block)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Poincaré_conjecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mathslover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to: 22:44, 22 August 2006 (Mathslover introduces WP:BLP-infringing statement re. Perelman, that is: a potentially offensive claim without source)
    • 1st revert: 05:28, 1 September 2006 (again, differently worded and in another place but basically the same BLP-infringing statement on Perelman)
    • 2nd revert: 07:07, 1 September 2006 (again, different wording and different place. This time using a pseudo-source, that is: the source does not confirm what Mathslover contends it says regarding lack of value of Perelman's work)
    • 3rd revert: 07:37, 1 September 2006 (similar to previous, but more disturbing to page layout)
    • 4th revert: 11:38, 1 September 2006 (similar to first revert, that is without sources and intertwined in text)

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 12:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Blocked for 8 hours for first violation. --Robdurbar 17:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Halbared reported by User:HamishMacBeth (Result:8hour block)

    Three revert rule violation on

    List_of_famous_tall_men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halbared (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: user has a few warnings on his talk page about breaking the 3RR, but I believe this is his first report. HamishMacBeth 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Yeah - first violation so an 8 hour warning block. --Robdurbar 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Sparcusmarcus reported by User:FeloniousMonk (Result:12 hrs)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Intelligent design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sparcusmarcus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User:Kizzuwatna reported by User:Khosrow II (Result: 12 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Seljuq dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kizzuwatna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user is trying to put his interpretation of a quote into the article. He doesnt seem to understand that POV is not acceptable on Misplaced Pages.Khosrow II 21:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:132.241.246.111 on George_Felix_Allen

    George_Felix_Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 132.241.246.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Comments

    Suspected sock puppet. Repeatedly warned on POV, possible vandalism and personal attacks.

    Time report made: 23:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

    what personal attacks? 132.241.246.111 02:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Diffs out of order, but not clear that "first" is a revert William M. Connolley 10:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:ParadoxTom reported by User:Kevin Breitenstein (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Jews for Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ParadoxTom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 02:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Pretty clear cut. After being 3RR warned by User:Humus sapiens, their next revert was "RV from Humus Sapiens who broke 3RR before I did; review talk page.".

    The first one may be a partial revert, as it removed the {{noncompliant}} tag from the article, but I'd rather err on the safe side, there are 4 nearly full reversions there anyways. Kevin_b_er 02:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    8h William M. Connolley 10:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Davkal reported by User:Askolnick (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    CSICOP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    02:33, 2 September 2006]


    Note: Davkal's 5th reversion was made after I posted a notice on his talk page and on the CSICOP talk page that he was already in violation of His response was to post a warning on my talk page charging me with harrassment and other misconduct and he then made his 5th reversion within 24 hours. Askolnick 04:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 10:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:74.33.0.16 reported by User:Nandesuka (Result: 3h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Xbox 360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.33.0.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Content dispute over whether a laundry list of games should be on the Xbox 360 page.

    Time report made: 04:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    3h first offence William M. Connolley 10:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    The first thing that this user did after his block expired was to revert the same page over the same content dispute and accuse OTHERS of violating 3RR. . Please consider a longer block. -- mattb @ 2006-09-02 19:27Z

    User:Yepre reported by User:Aran|heru|nar (Result: protected)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Chinese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yepre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 09:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This is Yepre's second violation of 3RR. Yepre is a suspected sockpuppet of Edipedia, currently blocked for 5th violation of 3RR, incivility, vandalism, blanking, etc. Aran|heru|nar 09:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Currently protected William M. Connolley 10:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Germen editing as User: 81.58.29.91. Reported by User:SlimVirgin. (Result: 3 months)

    3RR on Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Germen (talk · contribs) editing as 81.58.29.91 (talk · contribs) See Comments section below for evidence that it's Germen.

    • 1st edit 11:37 September 1 (removed that Islamophobia is a concept and inserted in the first sentence that it's a "disputed neologism"; added POV tag)
    • 1st revert 15:38 September 1 (straightforward revert to his previous version)
    • 2nd revert 11:06 September 2 (reverted to POV tag and "disputed neologism"; added citation to Robert Spencer to the intro)
    • 3rd revert 11:21 September 2 (straightforward revert to his previous version)
    • 4th revert 11:37 September 2 (straightforward revert to his previous version)
    • 5th revert 11:53 September 2 (restored POV tag and re-added Robert Spencer to lead)
    • 6th revert 12:02 September 2 (restored POV tag and changed phenomenon to "alleged phenomenon" in the lead; restored Robert Spencer)
    • 7th revert 12:48 September 2 (restored POV tag; restored "alleged phenomenon"; restored Robert Spencer)

    Reported by SlimVirgin 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comment

    I left a warning, thinking this was a new anon, but then learned it was user:Germen editing again for the first time since he was blocked for a month in April by Dmcdevit for sockpuppetry and block evasion. He's been blocked several times before for 3RR, including on this article. Here is Germen leaving a post on his talk page from the same IP range. SlimVirgin 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Because of my low opinion of Misplaced Pages maintenance of rules, I decided to edit as an anonymous account. I did not revert, but re-inserted information which was deleted by this controversial administrator, whose controversial administration and editing patterns have drawn considerable interest (at least three forum threads) at wikipediareview.com (which I do not believe to be an attack site, but a necessary addendum to the Misplaced Pages community). Several attempts from my side to discuss the matter were ignored. The textual changes I made were not identical to the previous versions, so they do not qualify as a revert. Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not revert, just tried to cooperatively add and improve information. There is an editing conflict, so the POV tag is justified. So according to my knowledge I did not violate 3RR. Any attempts to negotiate a solution of the conflict with her failed, see the talk page of the Talk:Islamophobia article. I would like she heeds the worries of several people at e.g. wikipediareview.com and changes her administrative pattern. Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 15:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Detailed refutation

    • As an administrator, SlimVirgin should be aware that in the case of an editing conflict the POV tag is in place.
    • She should be aware as well that reverts are to be used mainly in order to stop vandalism. Adding an important critic of the Islamophobia concept (Robert Spencer, a bestselling author whose book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades ranked at #14 of Amazon sales at a certain point) and adding a much-needed POV label cannot be qualified as vandalism, hence reverting was inappropriate, see WP:3RR.
    • My attempts to discuss the differences in opinion with her failed, even so resulting in deleting entries in her guest book.
    • Her tendency to resort to reverting instead of working out differences in a way compatible to good Wikiquette is a genuine source of concern, not only for me but also for several other users.

    Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 16:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    This is not the location to mount ad hominem attacks against SlimVirgin. If you have issues with her as a Misplaced Pages admistrator, you should address those through the appropriate channels (and this is not one of them). In the meantime, please confine your comments to the issue at hand, particularly the violation of WP:3RR. alphaChimp 16:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Given this user's extensive history of 3RR violations, admitted use of alternative accounts to bypass said history, and protracted WR based ad hominem attacks against an admin, I am blocking both users (the IP and the account) for 3 months. As this is longer than usual, I'd invite the comment of other administrators. alphaChimp 16:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:CltFn reported by User:BhaiSaab (Result: 48h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule violation on

    Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Three revert rule violation on

    Dhimmitude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 16:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: All are at least partial reverts. He was also reported here with no review of the report done. User has been blocked previously for 3rr violations. BhaiSaab 16:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    48h multiple repeat offences William M. Connolley 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:LaszloWalrus reported by User:Leflyman

    Three revert rule violation on

    Pseudoreligion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LaszloWalrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    Time report made: 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: LaszloWalrus has been on an edit-war campaign to excise Objectivism from this article; he is currently gaming the system, ignoring the extensive responses and sources provided on the Talk:Pseudoreligion page, as well as the citations listed in the article itself (which he has removed). This editor has an self-avowed interest in Objectivism and has run into a number 3RR warnings and blocks when adding/removing material from other articles. In this case, since May, he has reverted the article over a dozen times. Initially he claimed "unsourced"; but when provided sources, claimed "unsupported" or "biased", and now claims "non-consensus" (although only a single other Objectivist has concurred with him).--Leflyman 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Its 4R *in 24h* - which this isn't William M. Connolley 18:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    From WP:3RR:
    • "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."
    • And, under Intent of the policy: "Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context."
    This user is edit-warring and gaming the 3RR policy, which qualifies as an "excessive case".--Leflyman 20:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Runcorn reported by User:Ramand (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Grigori Perelman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Runcorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 18:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    The user is an admin and must know about the 3rr rule.Ramand 18:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    The admin not only broke the 3rr rule but also locked the page in his version.Ramand 18:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    I had already blocked him for 24 hours. Dmcdevit·t 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Editorius reported by User:BYT (Result: 8h)

    Three revert rule violation on September 2 at 17:24

    Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Editorius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 14:12
    • 2nd revert: 14:19
    • 3rd revert: 16:57
    • 4th revert: 17:24

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: Under dispute is the insertion of the word "established."

    • comment it's more complex a change than that, as one form states that muhammad is the main prophet of islam, whilst the other states that muhmmad founded islam (which using the arbic meaning means something different. Both sides have been unwilling to state the location of any prior consensus to their position, nor have they attempted to discuss the problem properly on the article's talk page. LinaMishima 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment -- I acknowledge that I should have made more of an effort to engage with Editorius on the talk page. That said, four is four, the word "established" is in fact what he's broken the rule over, and he made a personal attack on my talk page. BYT 18:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    8h first offence William M. Connolley 19:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Pete_K reported by User:Hgilbert (Result: 24 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on Sept 2, 2006

    Waldorf_education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pete_K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 19:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    2006-09-02T21:11:05 Longhair (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Pete K (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of WP:3RR at Waldorf education) William M. Connolley 09:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Ryodox reported by DocFisherKing 22:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (Result:no block)

    2 Violations

    Three revert rule violation between 29 August 2006 - 2 September 2006

    David_Duke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ryodox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    DocFisherKing 22:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    Not to mention previous record, warnings of vandalism, along with various reprimands for racial rants… |

    No block. Not more than three reverts. Naconkantari 01:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Chadbryant reported by User:Sasaki (Result:48 hours)

    Three revert rule violation on

    World Wide Fund for Nature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chadbryant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 23:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • A check of the edit history of both pages will show that Chadbryant is reverting the edits of several editors not just myself, therefore he is the one creating the edit conflict. His claim of vandalism is unmerited and a clear violation of WP:AGF. Sasaki 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • From Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#What vandalism is not: 'Sometimes, users will insert content into an article that is not necessarily accurate, in the belief that it is. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it. If you believe that there is inaccurate information in an article, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it. '
    • Incorrect information is certainly NOT vandalism, neither is non-neutral editing. I would sympathise but you've been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule six times. A block longer than 24 hours is necessary to hammer home that NO MATTER WHAT the situation and NO MATTER WHAT the provovation, edit wars are harmful and should be avoided. 48 hours. --Robdurbar 12:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Chadbryant reported by User:Sasaki (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Percy Pringle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chadbryant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :


    Time report made: 23:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    • A check of the edit history of both pages will show that Chadbryant is reverting the edits of several editors not just myself, therefore he is the one creating the edit conflict. His claim of vandalism is unmerited and a clear violation of WP:AGF. Sasaki 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Your allegation of abusive sockpuppet is without foundation. My IP is based in the UK and registered to British Telecom, but don't let lack of evidence get in your way will you? Sasaki 00:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:24.89.235.25 reported by User:User:Montco (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Todd_Pinkston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.89.235.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • Previous version reverted to: VersionTime
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Comments:

    • 24.89.235.25 has been reverting changes I originally made to the article. The article about a football player was extremely POV, and really devoid of accurate information (ie picking out one game in 2004 to describe his extire season). I did make some changes while trying to incorporate the criticisms of the player in a less abusive way.

    Not in 24h William M. Connolley 16:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    It is now. Montco 16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Subhash_bose reported by User:BhaiSaab (Result: 1 Week)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Atal Bihari Vajpayee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Subhash_bose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: User has been blocked for 3rr violations before. BhaiSaab 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Blocked for one week. BhaiSaab 19:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Burak18 reported by User:Ugur Basak (Result: no block)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Galatasaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Burak18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Three revert rule warning diff from before this report was filed here (if applicable) :

    You need 4R, not 3 William M. Connolley 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Time report made: 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    This user has already blocked 2 times for 3RR on Galatasaray article. Each time when his block time ends, he starts revert war. This time i can't give exact reverted version because Galatasaray signed and loaned out a few players, because of this reverts are plus signed in and out versions. Btw, user don't respond anyone. --Ugur Basak 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:Stirling Newberry reported by User:87.19.140.175 (Result: 24h)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Gold_Standard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stirling_Newberry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Time report made: 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments:

    User insists he's reverting a "sockpuppet" which is not the case. I've been an editor for a couple of months, but do not have the desire to register a username. Why does having an IP address automatically make me a sockpuppet? Anyway, Stirling has reverted three different users on this topic, he is insisting that it be reverted to his POV. I'm not here to discuss his POV, but he has reverted *FIVE* times in a less that 24 hour period, instead of requesting any further action (page protection, mediation, etc.) Please assist. Thank you 87.19.140.175 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    Also, user has been blocked for 3RR violation in the past 03:07, 9 February 2005 Chris 73 block 87.19.140.175 20:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    24h. If anyone finds evidence that SN is indeed reverting socks, then the block should probably be removed William M. Connolley 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:E104421 reported by User:Clevelander (Result:)

    Three revert rule violation on

    Justin McCarthy (American historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Time report made: 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comments: This user has attempted to remove cited information from Misplaced Pages and has violated the Three-Revert Rule in the process. -- Clevelander 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    User:CFIF reported by User:82.165.237.19 (Result:go away)

    Three revert rule violation on

    ATA Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    Stop icon

    Your recent editing history at CFIF shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

    Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.:


    Time report made: 82.165.237.19 01:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    You're using the page to stage an attack on CFIF is what it is. I'm going to block you instead, have advised CFIF to stop, semi-protected the article and am certainly not going to hand you a victory of a block on CFIF given your trolling. -Splash - tk 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    Copy-paste-edit this for a new report

    ===] reported by User:~~~ (Result:)===
] violation on 
{{Article|PROBLEM ARTICLE/PAGE NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}: 
<!-- USE UNDERSCORE INSTEAD OF SPACE! -->
* Previous version reverted to:  
<!-- Use this for simple reverts. For more complex reverts, please include information 
about which previous versions are being reverted to. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!-- These MUST be DIFFS, not OLDIDs. Look up Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
Three revert rule warning diff from '''before''' this report was filed here (if applicable) :
* 
Time report made: ~~~~~
'''Comments:'''
    Categories: