Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:19, 30 December 2007

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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.

Violations

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

User:Carl.bunderson reported by User:Padmanii (Result: Page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Carl.bunderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 20:57, 24 December 2007

• 1st revert: 07:53, 27 December 2007
• 2nd revert: 07:58, 27 December 2007
• 3rd revert: 08:20, 27 December 2007
• 4th revert: 08:28, 27 December 2007
• 5th revert: 22:55, 27 December 2007
• 6th revert: 22:59, 27 December 2007
• 7th revert: 23:09, 27 December 2007

• This user is not new, he is very experienced and already aware of the 3RR violation. However, a warning was given after his 4th revert but he continued up to 7 reverts.
• Diff of 3RR warning: 08:32, 27 December 2007

This user has been asked to stop edit warring and to stop removing sourced content. But he has insisted on removing sourced content and then violated the 3RR rule and continued edit warring even after he was warned.

note: Previously this complaint was declined because according to that admin others violated it too. But, this user Carl.bunderson violated it first. Please reconsider, because he is a veteran user and was well aware of it and instead broke the rule and set the bad example to the other editors. 00:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Malformed 3-RRR

Sorry but the other submissions do not give a clue. If the fact that after being blocked for 28 days for 3-RRR on that same article, the user makes 19 edits on the same article, removing all the work in the meantime, plus refuses to discuss anything on the article talk page, removing all my edits, is not enough for a 3_RRR, then I will not try it again. Just for techies and not writers, I guess. Mattisse 23:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:75.7.235.53 reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: 24 hours )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Nissan GT-R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 75.7.235.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: VersionTime

• 1st revert: Revision as of 21:10, December 28, 2007
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 22:11, December 28, 2007 (revision warning in edit summary by another contributor)
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 22:44, December 28, 2007 (notice of 3RR in edit summary))
• 4th revert: Revision as of 23:20, December 28, 2007

• Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 00:06, December 29, 2007 on user's page

The debate continues on the classification of this new vehicle. Is it a "supercar" or not . CZmarlin (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Zeraeph reported by User:Mattisse - resubmission - (Result:no action, malformed)

• Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on

Psychopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC) PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS REQUEST - i HAVE TRIED TO FOLLOW ALL RULES EVEN THE ONES YOU DO NOT TELL PEOPLE ABOUT

• Previous version reverted to: (I am not sure what version this means)

(I tried to understand DIFFTIME but I do not understand what I am supposed to be doing. Please help -- is time started: 17:27, 28 December 2007 - time of Zeraeph's first edit on Psychopathy today?

I submitted a 3-RRR complaint today: ---User:Zeraeph reported by User:Mattisse (Result: no action, malformed report)---

• Three-revert rule violation on

Psychopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeraeph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: (I am not sure what version this means)

(I tried to understand DIFFTIME but I do not understand what I am supposed to be doing. Please help -- is time started: 17:27, 28 December 2007 - time of Zeraeph's first edit on Psychopathy today?

• first revert 17.20 December 28
• second revert -Revision as of 17:41, 28 December 2007
• third revert - Revision as of 17:43, 28 December 2007
• fourth revert -Revision as of 17:46, 28 December 2007
• fifth revert - Revision as of 17:47, 28 December 2007
• sixth revert -Revision as of 17:55, 28 December 2007
• seventh revert - Revision as of 17:56, 28 December 2007
• eighth refert - Revision as of 17:58, 28 December 2007
• ninth revert - Revision as of 17:59, 28 December 2007

• 10th revert - Revision as of 18:00, 28 December 2007
• 11th revert - Revision as of 18:07, 28 December 2007
• 12th revert - Revision as of 18:12, 28 December 2007
• 13th revert - Revision as of 18:14, 28 December 2007
• 14 revert - Revision as of 18:16, 28 December 2007
• 15 revert -Revision as of 18:17, 28 December 2007
• 16th revert - Revision as of 18:22, 28 December 2007
• 17th revert - Revision as of 19:17, 28 December 2007
• 16th revert - Revision as of 19:20, 28 December 2007
• 17th revert - Revision as of 19:22, 28 December 2007
• 18th revert - Revision as of 19:26, 28 December 2007
• 19th revert - Current revision (19:43, 28 December 2007)

• Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

User:Zeraeph received a 28 day block FFOR 3-RRR ON THE SAME ARTICLE which she served. WITH IN MINUTES SHE WAS BACK DOING THE SAME THING. SHE IS KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE 3-RRR. THIS IS A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE IF YOU DO NOT DO SOMETHING.

User:Zeraeph's 28 day block was for this same behavior on the same article Psychopathy, at least in part. Her answer to my article page post was in the same vein as before -- she is right, I am wrong and she does not have to discuss or compromise or come to consensus on changes. She is concentrating on my edits without consulting or trying to compromise or explain to me. She has moved and rearranged reference citations I put there, as well as misrepresented their meanings. Although she has rearranged and removed my citations and and changed or removed my wording, she will not discuss anything related to the content of the articlefwith me, other to state in edit summary that I was wrong, or other disparaging remarks about my edits in the edit summaries. I was warned the last time this happened by User:Viriditas not to contact Zeraeph on her talk page. Mattisse 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• PLEASE RECONSIDER MY REQUEST

Declined Malformed request. No 3RR violation immediately apparent from history. Please see the other reports on this page as examples on how to provide a correct report. Sandstein (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked carefully at the other reports and I cannot figure out what you want! Mattisse 23:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying again. Please consider my request. Pretty hopeless, hun? wikipedia is not for the likes of me. Regards, Mattisse 04:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

User:Zeraeph received a 28 day block which she served and it was lifted today, a few hours ago.

User:Zeraeph's 28 day block was for this same behavior on the same article Psychopathy, at least in part. Her answer to my article page post was in the same vein as before -- she is right, I am wrong and she does not have to discuss or compromise or come to consensus on changes. She is concentrating on my edits without consulting or trying to compromise or explain to me. She has moved and rearranged reference citations I put there, as well as misrepresented their meanings. Although she has rearranged and removed my citations and and changed or removed my wording, she will not discuss anything related to the content of the articlefwith me, other to state in edit summary that I was wrong, or other disparaging remarks about my edits in the edit summaries. I was warned the last time this happened by User:Viriditas not to contact Zeraeph on her talk page. Mattisse 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Declined Malformed request. No 3RR violation immediately apparent from history. Please see the other reports on this page as examples on how to provide a correct report. Sandstein (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC) MINUTES BEFORE SHE HAD COMPLETED A 28 DAU BLOCK FOR THE SAME EXACT BEHAVIOR ON THE SAME ARTICLE.

• Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.

Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.

• Diff of 3RR warning: DIFFTIME

If I had made 19 contested edits without discussion or consensus in the space of two hours, having just come off a 28 day block for doing the same thing, I know I would have received a block. In this case, nothing happened. One person explained that if you do 19 in a row, then that is considered only one edit. Is this true. I would have interrupted the editting with one of my own but I did not want to get the 3-RRR. I guess I should take the rules more casually. Mattisse 05:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Matisse, this report is still malformed. For one thing, consecutive edits are nearly always treated as one edit for the purpose of counting reverts. Secondly, I can't really see what's so hard about this. I'm no techie, either (look at the history of this page and you'll see it took me three edits to put the sample report back on bottom), and I've never had trouble with it. The point of these reports is to make it abundantly clear to admins how the user has violated 3RR. As this report fails to do that, I have no reason to act on it. Sorry. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mattisse, I've looked at the history of the article pretty thoroughly and there simply doesn't seem to be a 3RR violation here. That's probably the reason you're having such a hard time filling out a report properly. Each of you have made a number of changes to the article, but they seem to be attempts at constructive editing rather than simple reverts. The only thing I see is a very minor content-related edit war in which both of you are equally at fault. If you have a disagreement about the content, this isn't the place to discuss it or seek support for your opinion. Take it to a talk page—either the article's talk page or one of your user talk pages—and discuss the problem with Zeraeph. Kafziel 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• The user Z is now enganged in discussion with Admins, and a block might interrupt the conversation so a block might be interrupted. Maybe this event should be set aside, and if the editor does another 3RR then report the new event. People have offered on User talk to help with a report, so you could just wait for a new violation to report. Admins in present discussion on Admin board would find it interesting for a violation to happen during the discussion. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Josquius (Result:malformed)

User created page Those Dancing Days. Tagged as speedy for non-notability by another editor. This user removed the tag, instead of using the hangon tag. I reverted it, but he continues to remove it instead of following proper procedure. Warned on his talk page: he ignores the warning. See history here. EuroSong 14:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong.
I removed the tag only once as I felt it was added way too fast and completely without just cause, I was planning to make the article far bigger today but it seems that wouldn't be a wise move. With the first re-addition of the tag I realised it wasn't just someone being overly busy and tagging every single new page as for deletion so I added hangon. The first thing to appear on my talk page after the speedy deletion notice was the information that this had been added to the notice board, no warnings or anything of the sort.--Josquius (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems now that part of my further edits have meant the original maker of the tag has also decided it makes the band notable. I've grown a bit sick of wikipedia for the day though to add much more yet.--Josquius (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please format this report properly per the example below, including diffs of the reverts. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou reported by User:Bless_sins (Result: 84 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): 19:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The user has made two sets of reverts. In set 1 the user made one revert, in set 2 the user made 3 reverts, to a total of 4 reverts in 24 hours. WP:3rr says "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."

Set 1.

• Previous version reverted to: 16:18, 28 December 2007
• 1st revert: 10:51, 29 December 2007
  • The user removed a category that Timeshifter added. In the edit summary the user admits the edit is a revert.

Set 2.

• Previous version reverted to: 13:25, 29 December 2007

• 2nd revert: 14:31, 29 December 2007
• 3rd revert: 16:57, 29 December 2007
• 4th revert: 17:57, 29 December 2007

In each of the reverts the user is removing

Collective punishment, the punishment of an innocent Palestinian "for an offence he or she has not personally committed."

and replacing it with

Collective punishment, Amnesti International stated that, while the Israeli authorities contend destroyed structures were used or could be used by Palestinian armed groups to shoot or launch attacks against Israelis, such demolitions are often also manifestly carried out in retaliation for Palestinian attacks and therefore represent a form of collective punishment.

• Diff of 3RR warning: 17:22, 29 December 2007
  • This warning was given after Jaakobou made 3 reverts in 24 hours, but before his fourth revert. The warning has a link to WP:3rr as well. Jaakobou read this warning and responded to it before making the fourth revert.
• Please note: in this diff, the user him/herself alleges another user of violating WP:3rr.

All 4 reverts are on December 29, thus within a 24 hour period.Bless sins (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• He is actually up to 4 reverts on the "Amnesti" text alone (13:25 29 December) making this an even clearer violation (5 reverts in total). <eleland/talkedits> 19:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, that is the previous version he/she reverted to, as stated in the request.Bless sins (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

comment - i believe Eleland has misunderstood that two different issues are not a single compilable issue. As for violations, if anything, Eleland has violated WP:CIV and WP:NPA while being uninvolved on talk and disruptive on the article's history . This after he's been asked to stop this type of behavior . Jaakobou 20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note this is the noticeboard for violations of the 3rr rule. If eleland is disruptive, you should take it to WP:ANI (or a more appropriate place).Bless sins (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please also note that Jaakobou has been blocked for 3rr violations before. Check out the user's block log.Bless sins (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both Bless sins's report and with Jaakobou's comment. The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an electric fence, and Eleland is most certainly edit warring, even though he hasn't exceeded three reverts in 24 hours. I am not willing to block only one party here: only to block both or neither. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I have spoken to jaakobou and he's willing to settle this edit war in a civil manner on the article's talk page, rather than continue this nonsense. The question is whether Eleland, who is well-known for countless bad faith assumptions and personal attacks, can do the same. If he agrees, then I don't think there's a need to block anyone just yet. -- Ynhockey 20:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, considering the first edit given was not a revert per se, but the original insertion of this information, you could say that jaakobou hasn't actually violated the dry rule of WP:3RR, although both parties are guilty of edit-warring. -- Ynhockey 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• • This is offtopic, but there's a difference between assuming bad faith and concluding that somebody is just not a productive editor. Essentially all of Jaakobou's edits fall into one of two categories:

1. Adding contentious, unsourced or inappropriately sourced, and awkwardly written "pro-Israel" information to articles about that country
2. Reverting edits on articles about that country, often edits which repair the damage caused by #1.

• • No matter how hard one tries to reach him, Jaakobou remains aloof to the ideas of reliable sources, neutral point of view, and consensus building. When he bothers to explain his actions, it's generally in the form of "This version is better," or "More NPOV this way," with no indication that he has even read the statements made by others. Actually, he doesn't seem to read a lot of things, including the edits which he reverts and the sources which he cites. Obviously, this leads to an exasperated reaction. Jaakobou then seizes on this reaction with cries of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, allowing him to further evade discussion.
  • I do not know whether this reflects a conscious strategy on Jaakobou's part, but for the purposes of improving the project, I really don't think it matters. Sooner or later, he has to be dealt with. And it starts with taking WP:3RR seriously; there is a disturbing trend whereby Jaakobou slips through 3RR, or is unblocked, on seemingly ad hoc reasoning. <eleland/talkedits> 20:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that if you replace 'jaakobou' with 'Eleland' in your post, the statements would still pretty much be correct (with a few tweaks). Please don't take this as a personal attack against you, just know that not all Wikipedians consider jaakobou a 'problem that has to be dealt with'. So far it seems to me like you are the one deleting jaakobou's sincere and civil comments from your talk page, not vice versa, and assuming bad faith. If you laid back a little and agreed to look at jaakobou as an equal, maybe there wouldn't be nearly as many edit wars between you two. Just for the records, I can show you at least one instance where you have made a very insulting bad-faith assumption against me (so it's not just jaakobou). -- Ynhockey 21:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for eighty-four hours, for edit-warring across multiple articles. I see a pattern of edit-warring behavior – at House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian, Second Intifada, Islam: What the West Needs to Know, and, to a lesser degree, at other articles – that simply needs to stop. -- tariqabjotu 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - just for the record, I don't think it's appropriate that an administrator highly involved in Israel and Palestine-related articles should make a decision in this case. It should be an impartial admin. -- Ynhockey 21:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh please... give me a break. -- tariqabjotu 21:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you would say the same if an admin like Jayjg or SlimVirgin would block a pro-Palestinian editor while ignoring the pro-Israeli, after an edit war. -- Ynhockey 21:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That's quite an unhelpful comment to make, Jayjg and SlimVirgin are not involved with the issue here, if you are genuinely concerned about a conflict of interest, I would ask that you take the issue to WP:ANI to canvass for further opinions from uninvolved parties on the block, instead of making such comments here. That way, if the block is unwarranted or unfair, it might stand a chance of being overturned, if it's endorsed by other users, then we know the decision was correct. Nick (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Traditional unionist reported by User:Domer48 (Result:both blocked)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Londonderry, North Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:00, 29 December 2007

• 1st revert: 18:07, 29 December 2007
• 2nd revert: 18:20, 29 December 2007
• 3rd revert: 18:26, 29 December 2007
• 4th revert: 19:26, 29 December 2007

This user has been asked to stop edit warring and introducing content which reflects their stated POV. The name was used before partition, and they want it to reflect todays political condition. This is only the latest series of reverts, 16:00, 18 December 2007, 18:56, 21 December 2007. This is addressed per WP:IMOS, and they know it.

I dispute that I am guilty of damaging wikipedia - certainly I am not guilty to the extent that the reporting user is on this matter. I stand my by rationaleTraditional unionist (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The name was devised before partition, that is before Northern Ireland existed, and you what to change the context as if it had always been there. I never said you were damaging wikipedia, I'm saying you breached the 3rr and stand my your rationale (POV). By breaching the policies, you damaging wikipedia, and just to make a point.--Domer48 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. My rationale is that it is more useful to state that what the situation is now, rather at a date we do not know, which you are assuming was before 1921. This is not the first time that 2 or more nationalist editors have considently seen me fall outside the rules while they stay within themTraditional unionist (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Both editors are edit warring, even though only one has exceeded the arbitrary limit of three reverts in 24 hours. Furthermore, both clearly know better, as they've both been blocked for this in the past. Blocking both for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You fall outside the rules because dispite this report, you are doing the same right now on a different article. Please stop, I've asked you already. --Domer48 (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On the troubles article, I've been reverting changes made while a discussion is ongoing about it on the talk page. I have made edits to this article which I stand over, that you have not adequately argued your reasons for reverting.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:128.253.139.187 reported by User:Mwalcoff

User has three times reverted my clean-up of the history section of American football. After the second revert, I used his user talk page to invite him to discuss on the article talk page. Instead, he reverted for the third time. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Example

<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
===] reported by ] (Result: )===
*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: 16:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Necessary for newer users: A diff of 3RR warning issued before the last reported reversion.
Your report will be ignored if it is not placed properly.
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
A short explanation of the incident.
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

1. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, International Committee of the Red Cross
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Amnesty-rubble was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring