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 21:33, 10 March 2007 view sourceCrum375 (talk | contribs)Administrators23,961 edits remove improper report at bottom of page← Previous edit Revision as of 21:41, 10 March 2007 view source Crum375 (talk | contribs)Administrators23,961 edits →[] reported by [] (Result:): 48 hrs for 3RRNext edit →
Line 579: Line 579:
''2007-03-10T16:21:07 Majorly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Spligget (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (vandal only account)'' ] 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC) ''2007-03-10T16:21:07 Majorly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Spligget (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (vandal only account)'' ] 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


===] reported by ] (Result:)=== ===] reported by ] (Result: 48hrs)===


] violation on ] violation on
Line 619: Line 619:
:::::Giovanni, you say you want to resolve disputes via talk pages, but you never do. If you had used the talk page, even if you had continued to revert, I may have joined in with you. But you didn't. I do have a right to make edits, like you, so it's difficult to see why I have to stop editing and use the talk page when you don't. ] 21:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC) :::::Giovanni, you say you want to resolve disputes via talk pages, but you never do. If you had used the talk page, even if you had continued to revert, I may have joined in with you. But you didn't. I do have a right to make edits, like you, so it's difficult to see why I have to stop editing and use the talk page when you don't. ] 21:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Not true, I use the talk pages exenstively, but not always. What I never do now is to violate the 3RR rule, which you still do regularly. I have always given you a chance to self revert, as well. So if I was realy trying to get you in trouble as you say, I'd not give you that chance. You are doing this to yourself. Its your own actions that you are responsible for. Use the talk page or don't use the talk page (I recommend the former), but don't keep breaking the rules about reverting (or other important rules such as being uncivil, ect). These things are not optional.] 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC) ::::::Not true, I use the talk pages exenstively, but not always. What I never do now is to violate the 3RR rule, which you still do regularly. I have always given you a chance to self revert, as well. So if I was realy trying to get you in trouble as you say, I'd not give you that chance. You are doing this to yourself. Its your own actions that you are responsible for. Use the talk page or don't use the talk page (I recommend the former), but don't keep breaking the rules about reverting (or other important rules such as being uncivil, ect). These things are not optional.] 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
'''Comment''' I have blocked ] for 3RR violation for 48 hours, due to recent 3RR block. ] 21:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 21:41, 10 March 2007

Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.

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:Rajkumar Kanagasingam reported by User:Lahiru_k (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Rajkumar Kanagasingam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rajkumar Kanagasingam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    Rajkumar Kanagasingam (talk · contribs) is the sockpuppet of the user Rajsingam (talk · contribs) which is already blocked for personal attaks. Even Rajsingam (talk · contribs) have been blocked on 20:45, December 28, 2006 for violating 3RR on Anton Balasingham. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 06:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes and this is not the first time. He did this from his old account too. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 08:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    24h: 3rr/auto William M. Connolley 09:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Pan-ethnic reported by User:DLX (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pan-ethnic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments:

    Also abusive/insulting edit summaries. User has been warned for both those and 3RR.

    According to Wobble, this user may be a sockpuppet of a permanently banned user (see User_talk:Pan-ethnic#Sockpuppet; also IP's 65.92.92.95 and 69.157.108.162) DLX 08:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    24h. You'll have to sort out the sock stuff elsewhere William M. Connolley 09:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:192.223.140.62 reported by User:KarlBunker (Result: 24h)

    192.223.140.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Essentially a troll/vandal, repeatedly making the same edit against consensus and refusing to discuss. Has been blocked for this before. The story is in the history KarlBunker 11:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


    24h William M. Connolley 12:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


    User:Citylightsgirl reported by Isarig (Result: 8h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Oliver Kamm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Citylightsgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    User was warned to self revert after the 5th violation here, but ignored the request, and continued to revert on this page, with additional reverts such as this, some half an hour after the 5th revert listed above.

    Comments

    8h William M. Connolley 19:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Necmate reported by User:melonbarmonster (Result: No violation)

    Three-revert rule violation on Anti-Japanese sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Yakiniku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views),Kofun period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views),Mike Honda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views),Baekdu Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Necmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    16:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    Comments

    User has made at least 5 reverts in 5 different articles.

    These involve different articles. 3RR applies to over three reverts in 24 hours to one article. SlimVirgin 19:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Tar-Elenion reported by PaxEquilibrium (Result:No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on User:Tar-Elenion. PaxEquilibrium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    User keeps removing a Sock-puppetry tag based on numerous evs, including a checkuser request. --PaxEquilibrium 21:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    The problem though is that the checkuser said likely, not confirmed. It's a gray area. I'd say no block for now. --Woohookitty 07:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Martinphi reported by Consumed Crustacean (Result: No block )

    Three-revert rule violation on Psychic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    The version reverted to isn't exactly the same, but it still violates the spirit of 3RR in that he's repeatedly reverting in order to remove the joining of two sentences, regardless of the way in which he chooses to do so. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think calling all these edits 'reverts' is stretching the definition of 'reversion' a little too far. Please try to reach consensus on the article's Talk page. No block. Crum375 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    Why wouldn't these be reverts? There's agreement on the talk page that having the passage as one sentence versus two is a real difference, and he has four times changed it from one sentence to two - not only is it clearly a revert, it's clearly the same revert four times. Further explanation would be appreciated. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    I understand the point about the joining of sentences, and perhaps this could be an example of disruption, but I think that this is not a simple case of reversion. It seems the editor is trying to find different ways of expressing his POV each time, which is not in my understanding of simple reversions. I think the editor should be encouraged to work reaching consensus with the others, if he keeps ignoring consensus then he could be blocked for disruption. Crum375 00:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    WP:3RR#What_is_a_revert.3F. These were all edits to undo a change another user performed, and bring the page back to a previous state; hence they were "reverts". I'm not certain what the stretch is. They're not all reversions to the same state, but that's not a 3RR requirement. They're reversions to some old state. I am considering RfC or some other step in the dispute resolution process, but the edit warring needs to be quelled. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    I agree about the need to quell edit warring, but in my opinion, having again read WP:3RR, if an editor makes different changes that appear to try to find a different way to promote his POV, I don't consider those actions as 'reverts', as he is not reverting to any specific version, but in fact creating a new one each time. I do find excessive changes that are non-consensual and non-collaborative to be disruptive, for which the user should be warned, and if the behavior persists, he could be blocked for disruption. Crum375 02:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    I probably should have coupled the diffs with the old versions. He reverted to , then to , then to , then to again. Those are distinctly reverts, not new material. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well, that would have helped, as you can clearly see that the format for a complaint on this page is specifically predicated on having a 'version reverted to', to which all reversions are made. So clearly by having several different version to which he's reverting does not follow the standard report format. In my opinion this could be a case of tendentious editing and/or disruptive behavior, but it is certainly not clear cut reversions which should be reported on this page. Crum375 02:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    On your last sentence, as I said, WP:3RR restricts any set of more than 3 reverts within an hour (excepting vandalism), regardless of what they are being reverted to. This page makes no distinction either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    If each 'revert' is reverting to something else, that is not a revert, but is an edit. Otherwise, what is the difference between someone just doing a lot of tendentious edits and reversions? I think that if we start considering every tendentious edit as a 'revert', it would dilute the clarity and simplicity of real reversions, where an editor is clearly reverting to a single well defined version. I also suggest moving this discussion, if you wish to pursue it, to the WT:3RR page, as I think these are generic issues which would benefit from a wider forum. Crum375 03:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    Again, WP:3RR defines revert as "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors." I think that's fairly clear. These reverts were specifically aimed at undoing a particular change (joining two sentences), they were not simply a series of random tendentious edits. Whether they're full reversions doesn't matter, they're clearly undoing other's edits. And, there's "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." I'll post something linking here on WT:3RR and continue there if necessary; I'm too lazy at the moment to actually write something useful. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    The first, third, and fourth edits are verbatim edits to earlier versions, not edits in any way, as shown here: . There's no question that those are reverts, nothing to be debated about them. The only version that has a change is the second, and only two words are changed from the version reverted to . Martin also had previous edits with the exact same version of that paragraph, so technically it's also a revert (an exact one of that paragraph) to . "Trying to find different ways of expressing his POV each time" absolutely doesn't apply to any of these edits, not a single one was a new wording that he hadn't made before. Please take a second look at this. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Felix-felix reported by Isarig (Result: No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Oliver Kamm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Felix-felix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    An experienced user who has been blocked for 3RR before - no warning required.

    Comments
    I have temporarily protected this page due to extensive edit warring. Please try to reach consensus on Talk page. Crum375 02:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Schmetterling reported by User:Athaenara (Result: 8h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Carla Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Schmetterling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    Schmetterling (talk · contribs), Spaceexplorer (talk · contribs), 68.50.13.75 (talk · contribs) and Carla Martin, the article the three accounts edit, are also the subject of a current Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard report. Not a new user. — Athænara ✉ 17:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    8h William M. Connolley 18:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Thanks—that's a good response, I think. It's not overly punitive, it gives the article (and the NPOV editors who'd been getting stepped on) a rest, and it gives the user a day to ponder policy and guidelines and such (we can hope :-)   — Æ. ✉ 19:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Schmetterling reported by User:PubliusFL (Result:31H)

    Three-revert rule violation on Carla Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Schmetterling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    An experienced user who has been blocked for 3RR before - no warning required.

    Comments
    This user came off an 8 hour block for 3RR within the past few hours and almost immediately began reverting again. User insists on removing well-sourced material from biographical (living person) article in an apparent whitewash attempt. PubliusFL 06:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    Schmetterling resumed reverting less than an hour after the previous 8 hour block expired. — Athænara ✉ 07:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    31 hour block. --Woohookitty 08:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, Woohookitty — Æ. ✉ 08:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    Fourth account for identical reverts by this user:

    User:Hoponpop69 reported by User:Bulbous (Result:24H)

    Three-revert rule violation on Michael Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 23:26, 7 March 2007
    • 1st revert: Revision as of 11:13, 8 March 2007
    • 2nd revert: 16:08, 8 March 2007
    • 3rd revert: 19:23, 8 March 2007
    • 4th revert: 19:27, 8 March 2007
    • 5th revert: 20:37, 8 March 2007
    • 6th revert: 21:24, 8 March 2007
    • 7th revert: 21:33, 8 March 2007
    • 8th revert: 22:49, 8 March 2007
    • 9th revert: 02:04, 9 March 2007
    Comments
    User has slightly modified POV edit but has repeatedly reverted any attempts to correct it. User has also shunned talk page where multiple editors await discussion of proposed edit. User is also making insults and taunts in edit summaries. Bulbous 06:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    24H block. --Woohookitty 08:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:A Man In Black reported by User:Wirbelwind (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A Man In Black (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    A Man In Black again, who keeps pointing to the same discussion that showed no consensus, is still actively advocating the CVG Navbox as guideline, despite numerous other editors disagreeing. When I tried to tell him my reasoning, and why I am trying to be fair, he reverts my edits on his talk page as well. He is adamant about maintaining that he is right and ignores any opposition. Even when asked by another to stop editing the page, he reverts it one last time. I asked him to do a self-revert and he did not. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    Wirbelwind is baiting, and it was probably a bad idea to rise to it. He ignored repeated suggestions to open some sort of centralized discussion or seek broader comment, in favor of edit warring while I was working on said centralized discussion and efforts to seek broader comment. Near as I can tell, he doesn't even have any dispute over the template; he's edit warring for edit warring's sake. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    First of all, I was not baiting. I didn't report you the numerous other times I saw you violate 3RR recently. I did now because I'm fed up that you won't listen to anyone else, nor read what other people show you, and revert multiple editors' consensus. I ignored repeated suggestion to open some sort of centralized discussion because I asked you repeatedly to prove that your so called guideline had consensus, and you were unable to every single time, which is what is causing all the havoc around you. I asked you to self-revert your edits that I reported, to which you deleted my comments on your talk page. And no, it's not that I have anything against the proposed guideline, I'm just trying to put an end to what you're doing, which is going against the interest of the majority at CVG. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 12:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    Note: User:A Man In Black is also editwarring here, although avoiding 3RR.  Grue  12:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Mackan reported by User:ShinjukuXYZ (Result: No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Yakiniku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mackan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    • Previous version reverted to: 18:10, 4 March 2007
    • 1st revert: 10:33, 4 March 2007(RV, sorry, unsourced and it's kind of hard to understand what you mean with some of it. post on the talk page, yeah?)
    • 2nd revert: 23:33, 4 March 2007　(RV - your English is unintelligible, please post on the talk page and be more precise what you mean. Also, the source you provided is not a reliable source.)
    • 3rd revert: 14:08, 5 March 2007(Your vandalizing the article with your unintelligible English. Please stop.)
    • 4th revert: 17:54, 5 March 2007(Stop adding unsourced, unintelligible nonsense to this page! This is the last warning, I will take this up with an administrator if this happens again)
    • 5th revert: 21:04, 6 March(RV - Could you please realise that the stuff you keep on inserting is in extremely broken English?? Broken means BAD, if you have problems understanding that too)
    • 6th revert: 15:44, 8 March 2007(RV - sockpuppet edit. it's unsourced, for the eleventh time! READ UP ON WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES!)
    Comments
    Mackan's personal attack started in 14:07, 5 March 2007. He contributed to my Talkpage , saying that "あんたあほちゃう？ (Are you dementia?)".　--ShinjukuXYZ 12:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    IP:67.81.252.247 reported by User:TheRingess (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on 11:11 (numerology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.81.252.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    The anonymous user has been re-adding the same unsourced material now for about 4 days. They have also deleted material. They do not fill out the edit summary. They do not respond to requests to discuss their edits. TheRingess (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 19:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:64.236.245.243 reported by User:Netscott (Result: 24h)

    Three-revert rule violation on Essjay controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 64.236.245.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Warned prior to this report:

    Comment: Simple case of 3RR here. (→Netscott) 18:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    OK. 24h William M. Connolley 19:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Domitius reported by User:Oguz1 (Result: no block)

    is this 3RR? Döner kebab (cur) (last) 18:00, 9 March 2007 Domitius (Talk | contribs) m (cur) (last) 17:52, 9 March 2007 Domitius (Talk | contribs) (cur) (last) 17:29, 9 March 2007 Domitius (Talk | contribs)

    No. Its (a) only 3R at best (b) appallingly badly formatted and (c) contiguous edits count as one William M. Connolley 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Luka Jačov reported by User:Khoikhoi (Result:24 hours)

    Three-revert rule violation on Gîsca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Luka Jačov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    Not a new user; check his block log. Khoikhoi 21:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    24 hours Jaranda 00:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Tsunami Butler reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 24h)

    3RR violation on Political views of Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Tsunami Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Comments

    Tsunami Butler appears to be a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche and has been reverting at Political views of Lyndon LaRouche since March 5 in an effort either to add material supportive of LaRouche or to remove material that reflects badly on him. The reverts above involve two quotes from LaRouche that have been published by Political Research Associates (PRA), a research company that tracks extremist groups, and which employs Chip Berlet. PRA has been ruled a reliable source by the ArbCom. It is not Chip Berlet's personal website or self-owned company.

    Tsunami keeps removing the quotes on the grounds that Berlet's material is self-published; she then stopped removing them but is now adding that they are only alleged by Berlet to be quotes from LaRouche. Either way, she is reverting attempts by other editors to retain the material as attributed to LaRouche and published by PRA. SlimVirgin 22:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley 23:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)



    User:John Smith's reported by User talk:Giovanni33 (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on Mao Zedong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):



    Comments

    Started out with wording on leadership and then included reverting other changes such as the caption of Mao's portraint being a personality Cult.

    The 5th revert is 1 second past 24 hours, but he continues to edit war with other editors on about changes to this article, instead of using the talk page to resolve them.

    I asked him to self revert to avoid being reported here: ]. He rejected to do this on the grounds that its “trivial” and reverted my message to him with the uncivil comments, calling me a “troll.” ]

    He has recently been blocked for violating the 3RR rule on similar subjects, making it three blocks already. He is aware of the policy but seems to take a casual disregard for it or getting blocked. 24 hours block doesnt seem to be taken seriously. When its explained to him, his attitude is to “yawn”: ]Giovanni33 00:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    My response was "yawn", because it is clear now Giovanni is wikistalking me and making threats. Example 1 is here - Giovanni has never shown any interest in military affairs, and suddenly he reverts my edit there. Example 2 is here. As to what Giovanni is complaining about, I decided to let it go and he could have his way. So I'm not really sure what he's complaining about. Does he insist I never revert any of his edits from now on, else he'll "report" me again? John Smith's 10:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    I did make a few small changes in the fourth edit, but I then changed them back subsequently. Oh, and yet another example of wikstalking here. He was deliberately trying to get me blocked for not breaking the rules. Do you see a pattern emerging? John Smith's 10:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, what else. Well Giovanni reverts his own warnings, so I'm not sure why he's complaining about that. And he refuses to back down or use the talk pages. So if he is claiming I am edit warring, he is deliberately fuelling it by refusing to discuss matters. John Smith's 11:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    Dont change the issue. The only issue here is violation of the 3RR rule. If you have other complaints and feel there are some violations on some policy that I have engaged it, then there are other boards to discuss that. What you have to do is too stop reverting in violation of the 3RR rule. You have done so again, btw, on another article. And, like, always, I'll give you a chance to self-revert before reporting you again. Its a rule we are all bound by.Giovanni33 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    I am not changing the issue, I am exposing you for the wikistalker you are, who is making false reports against me by clinging to teeny, weeny little issues because he can't stand anyone disagreeing with him. John Smith's 19:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not going to argue with you here about this. Its diversionary. I will say that you should read the policy on assuming good faith, being civil and not making personal attacks. All these are other violations you are guilty of, in addition to several violations of the 3RR rule, which is what this board is about. Issues may be "teeny, weeny, little issues," but that is your opinion (not mine), and that is not a valid excuse to break the 3RR rule. Simply don't do it, unless its clearly vandalism (I know you like to call edits you dont agree with vandalism, which you were warned not to do by an admin).Giovanni33 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    But you are here arguing with me, so obviously you have an agenda in trying to get me repeatedly blocked. Explain why you started reverting on a page you have never edited before - what am I supposed to see that as? Also I have not called your edits vandalism, so again, I have no idea what you're complaining about. John Smith's 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:201.43.16.177 reported by User:Influencey(Result: Warned)

    3RR violation in One drop rule. User has blanked the exact same section six times, all 6 blankings are dated March 9th, and hence in a 24 hour window. This is both a severe violation of 3 RR and also vandalism of highly relevant and interesting content sourced by the Washington Post.

    • 1st blanking of sourced content]18:14 March 9
    • 2nd blanking of sourced content]21:33 March 9
    • 3rd blanking of sourced content]21:51 March 9
    • 4th blanking of sourced content]22:09 March 9
    • 5th blanking of sourced content]22:10 March 9
    • 6th blanking of sourced content]22:28 March 9
    User warned. If blanking continues report to WP:AIV referencing this report. Viridae 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    The user was warned and reverted by several of us more than once, but has now reverted so many times, that I can't restore the blank content without violating the 3 revert rule myself. Influencey

    User:Spylab reported by User:NickW557 (Result:48hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on Skacore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Spylab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    Over a period of 2 hours, this user violated the 3RR 4 times by making 12 reverts on the same article. The user had added a PROD tag to the article and the prod was contested by an IP user removing the prod tag. The user then placed it back. When removed again, they placed it back yet again, and again, and again. The first time might be explainable that they thought the removal was vandalism, but after 11 times they should get the point that the PROD has been contested. The user called the removals "bad faith" on the IP's talk page, however the Proposed Deletion policy specifically states not to replace PRODs even if removed in bad faith. --Nick—/Contribs 01:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    Additionally, the user has been blocked in the past for 3RR violation. --Nick—/Contribs 01:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    48 hours. Viridae 03:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Gwen Gale reported by User:71.106.148.28 (Result: Warned)

    Three-revert rule violation on Lisa Nowak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    User was warned. --71.106.148.28 03:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

    No violation; the first diff is on a different matter. Trebor 18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    The policy states that it does not matter. There can be no 4 reverts on a single article within a 48 hour time period. We ought not let this Wikipedian get away with breaking the rules. --71.106.148.28 19:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    Upon rereading of the policy, you're right. However, given the user showed care in trying not violate this, I doubt he is either, so I'll warn him. Trebor 19:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    I wholly agree with the warning I was given, I'm not happy I warred with the anon at all but that first edit listed has nothing to do with the others and didn't even involve the same editor. Gwen Gale 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, I see 3rr policy has been changed and this was a technical vio. Thanks for letting me know and I think the warning was helpful. Gwen Gale 20:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Watchdogb reported by User:Snowolfd4 (Result: 24 hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on Anton Balasingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Watchdogb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    Comments
    I have blocked User:Watchdogb for 24 hours for 3RR violation on Anton Balasingham. The first revert is actually the 'version reverted to', but there are still 4 reverts within 24 hours. Crum375 05:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:SlamDiego reported by User:Economizer (Result: 12h each)

    Three-revert rule violation on Marginal utility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). SlamDiego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments
    He keeps reverting no matter what change is made to the article, as if he owns the article.

    You've both broken 3RR; have 12h each William M. Connolley 17:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Comment1 reported by SlimVirgin (Result: 24hrs)

    3RR on Germaine Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Comment1 (talk · contribs)

    • Version reverted to 12:49 Feb 20, Surturz removes from the lead that Greer is one of the most significant feminist voices of the 20th century and that she has written several highly acclaimed books.
    • 1st revert 01:29 March 10, simple revert by Comment1
    • 2nd revert 06:46 March 10, ditto
    • 3rd revert 07:21 March 10, ditto
    • 4th revert 08:33 March 10, ditto
    Comment

    Comment1 is an obvious sockpuppet account, who — along with various anon IPs and at least one other account, which may or may not be him too — has been removing the above from the lead for weeks. SlimVirgin 09:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    Also s-protected page to suppress reverts by anon-IPs and possible sockpuppets. Crum375 16:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:80.3.253.138 reported by User:81.77.133.176 (Result: No block)

    Three-revert rule violation on Peterborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.3.253.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    User:80.3.253.138 is entering into an "edit war" on a daily basis. I have left messages on his talk page and posted an RFC, but he ignores any attempt at dialogue. (I am a new user and still finding my way around, please advise...) 81.77.133.176 16:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    • As advice, please read WP:3RR and see the sample report at the bottom of this page. You can also look at other 3RR violation reports on this page, to see how it's properly done. We need a minimum of 4 reverts within 24 hours, plus a 'version reverted to', proper diffs, and ideally, the exact words that are being reverted. If you feel your situation is in fact a 3RR violation, please resubmit properly. No block for now. Thanks, Crum375 16:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


    User:Spligget reported by User:86.12.249.63 (Result: indef)

    Three-revert rule violation on Procapitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Spligget (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    2007-03-10T16:21:07 Majorly (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Spligget (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (vandal only account) William M. Connolley 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:John Smith's reported by User talk:Giovanni33 (Result: 48hrs)

    Three-revert rule violation on Type 45 destroyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):


    • 1st revert: ] 22:55, 9 March 2007
    • 2nd revert: ] 23:07, 9 March 2007
    • 3rd revert: ] 23:40, 9 March 2007
    • 4th revert: ] 23:48, 9 March 2007
    • 5th revert: ] 10:54, 10 March 2007
    • 6th revert: ] 17:54, 10 March 2007
    • 7th revert: ] 19:45, 10 March 2007


    Comments

    Edit waring with two editors, including one administrator. He would keep on reverting if it were not for the fact that the admin and myself both are adhereing to the 3RR rule. Smith does not, hence the 3RR violation above in 7 reverts over this issue. He is aware of the policy, has been blocked before and showes a casual disregard for the rules. However, ironically, he puts 3RR warnings on other users, warning them not to violate the 3RR rule, as he did to this admin for the above article here he busy reverting: ] I also note that he has engaged in personal attacks and has not been civil in edit summaries, such as "get lost, loser,", and calling other editors who are oppsing him, "trolls," and reverting with false edit summaries such as calling it "vandalism." I'd like him to realize the the rules are not optional.Giovanni33 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    More lies from you. I do not call all people trolls, I call you a troll because you are wikistalking me. You are reverting this article only to try to get me in trouble. You have shown no interest in it before I had an edit conflict with the other user. I continued to revert because I didn't see why I should let your wikistalking control my life. I have now accepted the use of an entry in the introduction, but you continued to revert just because you didn't like the style. Or was it just because I was making the edit?
    If you want me to stop edit warring, stop wikistalking me. John Smith's 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    That's not a very compelling defense, John Smith. Yours is a straightforward and egregious violation of 3RR. Why not apologize to Giovanni33 and pledge not to do it again, instead of compounding the problem by attacking him and blaming him for your actions?Proabivouac 20:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, I'm sorry and won't do it again. However I would ask that Giovanni not follow me around and revert edits in which both I and he know he has no interest in. John Smith's 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    I noticed the edit war you were involved in with the admin, and I agreed with the admin about the content. I would not have reverted you simply because you were involved. If its as you claim, and IM wikistalking you then why don't I go to all the other articles you are inovlved with? I don't. Infact, you have followed me to many articles to edit war. In anycase, my real interest is only in seeing that you abide by the 3RR rule like everyone else. If you do that and follow the other rules (civil, etc), then you will have no problem here. Content disputes should be settled by consensus on the talk page, not edit warring. I had to learn this lesson the hard way myself when I first started, and we are all better off if everyone follows these rules strictly.Giovanni33 21:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    First of all, the T-45 page was the only other one where I had a dispute with another editor. If you had jumped in elsewhere it would have been pointless and far too obvious. The fact you followed me onto Sumple's page and tried to provoke the situation by agreeing with his POV when we were on the brink of an agreement just made me suspect you even more. Maybe you thought you weren't doing anything wrong, but you did annoy me by getting involved after the problem had been resolved.
    Giovanni, you say you want to resolve disputes via talk pages, but you never do. If you had used the talk page, even if you had continued to revert, I may have joined in with you. But you didn't. I do have a right to make edits, like you, so it's difficult to see why I have to stop editing and use the talk page when you don't. John Smith's 21:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    Not true, I use the talk pages exenstively, but not always. What I never do now is to violate the 3RR rule, which you still do regularly. I have always given you a chance to self revert, as well. So if I was realy trying to get you in trouble as you say, I'd not give you that chance. You are doing this to yourself. Its your own actions that you are responsible for. Use the talk page or don't use the talk page (I recommend the former), but don't keep breaking the rules about reverting (or other important rules such as being uncivil, ect). These things are not optional.Giovanni33 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    Comment I have blocked User:John Smith's for 3RR violation for 48 hours, due to recent 3RR block. Crum375 21:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    User:Lukas19 reported by User:The Behnam (Result:)

    Three-revert rule violation on White people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lukas19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

    Comments

    Content dispute over inclusion of a picture as well as some edit warring over inclusion of a haplotype study.

    2nd and 3rd reverts dont count. I was reverting vandalism by LSLM, which are and . In both cases, he deleted sourced info without explaining. He has only said "rv p" and "Revertin continuous Lukas POV pushing" without explaining why it is POV pushing neither in edit summaries nor in discussion. And User:LSLM has committed vandalism before and was blocked for it. See User:LSLM's block log: Lukas19 20:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    Note: Confirmation that User:65.3.245.190 is LSLM: , .
    IP has signed off his edits with LSLM's signature. And LSLM has long been involved in sockpuppetry:

    Lukas19 21:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    Well that sounds like a content dispute, not blatant vandalism. The Behnam 21:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    I believe it was in bad faith. Besides the fact that he has not explained his edits, he has also engaged in sockpuppetry. And he has a pattern of vandalism in White people article and was blocked for it. Lukas19 21:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    His sockpuppetry does not mean that you are justified in continuing a content dispute past three reverts. Also, for other purposes, we need to prove that he is abusing the sockpuppet. He may just be forgetting to sign on, considering that his correction admits that the IP is his. The Behnam 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    I didnt revert him because he was a sockpuppet. I reverted him because he had failed to explain his deletions. His sockpuppetry and his past vandalism in the page only reinforced my impression that his reverts were in bad faith. Lukas19 21:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    Sample violation report to copy

    ===] reported by ] (Result:)===
] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE_NAME}}. {{3RRV|VIOLATOR_USERNAME}}:
* Previous version reverted to:  
<!-- If all the reverts are the same, please just provide the version-reverted-to.
For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous-version for each revert. -->
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
<!--
- * Necessary only for new users: A diff of 3RR warning _before_ this report was filed here.
Your report may be ignored if it is not placed properly.
* Diff of 3RR warning: 
-->
;Comments: <!-- Optional -->

    Note on completing a 3RR report:

    • Copy the template above, the text within but not including <pre>...</pre>
    • Replace http://DIFFS with a link to the diff and the DIFFTIME with the timestamp
    • We need to know that there are at least four reverts. List them, and replace http://VersionLink with a link to the version that the first revert reverted to. If the reverts are subtle or different, please provide an explanation of why they are all reverts. Even if the reverts are straightforward, it's helpful to point out the words or sentences being reverted.
    • Warnings are a good idea but not obligatory
    Categories: