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 19:26, 12 October 2007 editTDC (talk | contribs)8,719 edits →Jester7777 reported by Opinoso← Previous edit Revision as of 20:07, 12 October 2007 edit undoXenophrenic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,497 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 500: Line 500:
Although, this might be a bit difficult to follow, Xenophrenic has managed to remove, in one way or another, every contribution made to the article over the past 48 hours, and in the process reverted in whole or part, the contributions of other editors. ] 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Although, this might be a bit difficult to follow, Xenophrenic has managed to remove, in one way or another, every contribution made to the article over the past 48 hours, and in the process reverted in whole or part, the contributions of other editors. ] 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
* Please see similar 11 entries above this one. The diffs above do not show a violation of ]. As advised by ] on this same issue, ''"It is perfectly good editing practice to ask politely what they meant and to revert if you do not receive a reply,"'' which is what I did. TDC is misrepresenting the situation, edit warring, misrepresenting his edits in , and now appears to be attempting to get blocks issued instead of collaborating on article improvement. ] 20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

== Example == == Example ==
<pre> <pre>

Revision as of 20:07, 12 October 2007


Do not continue a dispute on this page: Please keep on topic.
Administrators: please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
If you do not follow the instructions for making reports correctly your report will not be actioned

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:DonaldDuck reported by User:Biophys (Result: Page protected)

    Putinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DonaldDuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    Deletion of sourced material and insertion of OR by User:DonaldDuck who also operates under IP address 217.117.80.2 (see also ). I tried to explain him WP policies but it did not help Biophys 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. He blamed me of RR warring: although I tried to extend/improve article in spite of his efforts to remove sourced views.Biophys 02:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    Biophys have broken 3 revert rule first

    1 2 3 4. Im' trying to improve the article and reorganise it into proper sections, while Biophys is in edit war. Biophys keeps inserting in the article material totally irrelevant to the topic of Putinism, such as some quotes on the Soviet security services history, etc DonaldDuck 03:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC).

    Not at all. As one can easily see, only "1" and "4" in these diffs are reverts, as I indicated in the edit summaries. "2" and "3" versions are completely different - even with different subheadings in the article.Biophys 04:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    My diffs, which your reported as reverts are also substantially different. Nemtsov's definition of Putinism is added, subsections, paragraph about usage of "Putinism" as a pejorative political term.DonaldDuck 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    No. Left and right parts in all four diffs provided by me are identical.Biophys 05:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Well, in "2" and "3" you have just combined your reverts with some other minor edits to avoid formal breaking of 3RR rule. And doctored my diffs by skipping intermediate revisions.DonaldDuck 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    DonalDuck is completely out of control. He just made another RR violation in the same article: 02:53, 10 October 2007 Biophys 05:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Please, don't skip all my , providing referenced sources in support of my version of the article structure.DonaldDuck 05:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    One more disguised revert by Biophys diffDonaldDuck 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    I reverted myself back. Does it help?Biophys 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:GHcool reported by User:Pedro Gonnet (Result: Stale)

    Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GHcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)



    • This user has not been warned for this incident, but he is an experienced and regular Misplaced Pages editor and knows WP:3RR, and therefore does not qualify as a "New user".

    These edits involve the addition by User:GHcool of sourced material to the article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. This material keeps getting deleted and User:GHcool keeps on inserting it. The material, although sourced, does not fulfil WP:RS and has been discussed -- and shot down -- many times before in the article talk pages. This, however, is not a content dispute, but a WP:3RR issue. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 08:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    • 3RR blocks are for preventing sterile edit wars, not for punishment. As such, reporting reverts from two or three days ago generally won't draw any action as there is nothing left to prevent. Also, the "previous version reverted to" needs to be timestamped before the reverts, otherwise it doesn't really make sense. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Whig reported by User:Skinwalker (Result: Blocked 12 hours)

    Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Whig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


    This user is insisting on adding a POV tag to the article without enumerating his specific concerns on the talk page. Requests for his reasons have led to filibustering and borderline personal attacks. On previous days he has gamed 3RR by reverting thrice and then waiting 24 hours (see TimVickers' report from 7 October 2007 above). Whig is being extremely disruptive and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could look into the situation. Thanks, Skinwalker 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    The user has been blocked for 12 hours. Wikidudeman 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Cobra982 reported by User:Neon_white (Result: Page protected)

    Mazinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Cobra982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


    Adds the same paragraph of unsourced, poorly written WP:AWW material. Does not discuss the text or respond to comments on talk page. --Neon white 14:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    I only see 3 reverts, and only 2 of them are of the same material. Wikidudeman 14:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    See the history. All three are reverts. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    I think the point Wikidudeman was making was that there needs to be four reverts before there is an actionable violation. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:RucasHost reported by User:ConfuciusOrnis (Result: Protected)

    Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). RucasHost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


    This is a WP:BLP to which RucasHost is trying to add poorly sourced defamatory content, he has violated 4RR once before on this page, resulting in page protection.17:15, 6 October 2007 Between these two incidents, at least five different editors have reverted him, and none have supported him. Consensus on the talk page is clear. Please just block the edit warrior this time, so we can get on with improving the article.  – ornis⚙ 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    • I support ConfuciusOrnis here. RucasHost's edits are clear breaches of 3RR and BLP. Please stop him if you can! Snalwibma 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The article has been protected. Frankly, the level of revert-warring on that article was embarrassing. I can't believe you had the audacity to come here and ask for someone to "stop him" when you were just as bad. -- tariqabjotu 17:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Excuse me? One edit warrior against talk page consensus, and five other regular editors... I think you should take that comment back and apologise frankly.  – ornis⚙ 17:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm strongly inclined to agree with CO here. 5 editors reverting one editor doesn't make them just as bad. It makes the one editor engage in 3RR 4 times over. JoshuaZ 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
        • (to all) Uh... am I the only person here who passed Thread Etiquette 101? Unless otherwise noted, an indentation in from a previous comment is presumed to mean a response to that comment. Unsurprisingly, Confucius did not indent his comment properly (I know you were talking to me). I did that and even quoted the person to whom I was responding. Geez. I don't care what is or is not consensus here; Snalwibma made seven reverts in just over half an hour (and two of those edits came within a minute of each other). There's no excuse for that. If someone is being disruptive on an article, you can request protection or make a 3RR report (the latter of which ConfuciusOrnis did). You don't just continuing reverting into oblivion. Sorry, folks, I'm not submitting to any ridiculous demand for an apology or retraction. WP:3RR does not exempt people who are "protect consensus"; anybody can just say that. The best (and perhaps only?) protection for those who are truly protecting consensus is the support from that consensus pool. At one point, that was the case without question; RucasHost could easily be blocked for a 3RR violation whereas the rest of the editors could not under any interpretation. But in the forty minutes or so prior to the protection, the article became the site of a dueling match between RuneHost and Snalwibma. That was embarrassing and I couldn't care less whether you disagree with me on that. Next time, before you formulate your sarcastic criticisms, you should actually read what is said (and to whom, dammit). -- tariqabjotu 20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Doh! You almost had a good point. Rucas was engaging in more tha edit-warring, he was engaging in vandalism (yes, that would be what one person repeately reinserting his POV edits against consensus would be called). No 3RRR vio for rving vandalism. Sorry, you were so close, and yet, well... BTW, Rucas was blocked for 12RR. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
            • He was not engaging in vandalism. Misplaced Pages:Vandalism specifically notes that "stubbornness" is not vandalism. -- tariqabjotu 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
                • Stubborness does not explain 12RR -- by the time you get to the point where you've been told repeatedly that you are violating consensus, anything after about 4RR becomes vandalism. Nonetheless, what Ornis notes below is also a valid reason for rv'ing Rucas' edits, while offering no defence for Rucas' actions. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
              • Wp:blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material makes for interesting reading. I already made a note of this in my original report, but since you seem to have missed that, I will point out again, that rucashost's edits were not only disruptive, not only clearly against consensus, but they were a violation of BLP. As such, per the policy, they not only may be, they must be removed aggressively, and 3RR simply does not apply to that removal. In fact, even without a 3RR violation, BLP violation is grounds for blocking. Since this is going to be archived I'll repost on your talk page.  – ornis⚙ 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
                • I did not miss that at all. The question of whether this is a BLP case can go either way; the blocking admin apparently decided this was not really a BLP case (hence the protection instead of a block). I am inclined to agree with his assessment; the statement is not "unsourced" or "poorly sourced". -- tariqabjotu 21:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
                  • So why do you suppose he reverted rucas' change then. In amy case, your interpretation of policy is sadly at odds with the consensus of those who actually spend time editing the article.  – ornis⚙ 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
                    • I have not commented on the idea of whether the controversial piece should be in the article (and I don't intend to). I have only commented on the use of WP:BLP as a reason to support that it not be, since BLP relates to whether 3RR can simply be ignored. -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Stew_jones reported by User:Robwingfield (Result: 6 hours)

    Ludovic Quistin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Stew_jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:52, 10 October 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.

    The user has a history of formatting articles to his own manual of style. I have attempted to persuade him to adhere to the correct MoS, but he gets abusive and reverts. On this occasion, I gained support from other users to avoid breaking 3RR myself. I would hope that any block given here would go some way to persuading the user to treat WP as a community project, and adhere to the correct styles... robwingfield  19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Anyeverybody reported by User:Misou (Result: 6 hours)

    L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Anyeverybody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 11 Oct 4:02
    • 2nd revert: 11 Oct 4:36
    • 3rd revert: 11 Oct 4:57
    • 4th revert: 11 Oct 5:10

    WP:POINT. Lots of attempt to get reason into him, by 4-5 different WPians. This user is growing disruptive.

    He is reverting the same thing 2-3 times per day since 8 Oct 2007, today, 11 Oct it was 4RR. Before this started he had some arguments on the article, see talk page.

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Misou 05:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    I have to admit I find it humorous that you'd warn and report on the same edit. It'd be like an armed sentry shooting an intruder while at the same time saying, "Stop or I'll shoot". Anynobody 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • 1st revert: 11 Oct 4:02 Was an addition of cited material, not a revert.
    • 2nd revert: 11 Oct 4:36 Was me replacing the material which was removed, and adding another source + more citations to current sources.
    Moreover the 4-5 other Wikipedians Misou mentions are a bit overstated. The neutral editors involved Foobaz, FOo, and GoodDamon actually seem to support the addition. Not counting CoS POV pushers, anti-CoS POV pushers, or myself, only Wikipediatrix doesn't support it. Anynobody 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    6 hours. I'll note that I'm highly unimpressed with the "discussion" that's been going on, and that applies to both sides here. Please tone down the flaming. Seraphimblade 06:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Misou reported by User:Anynobody (Result: 12 hours )

    L. Ron Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Misou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: Any version which does not have a section called Personality.


    *1st revert: 04:45, 10 October 2007

    A new section was started by me, and supported by others, using first one source then two others with several citations. The sources depict a spoiled jerk, at least those we've found so far. Though WP:RS are being searched for that are more positive, Misou (and others) have chosen to revert the new section rather than improving it despite invitations to do so. I understand that this 4th revert is just outside the 24 hour timeframe, however this appears to be a case of gaming the system in order to remove cited material. Quoting WP:3RR, . Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. I'm hoping for a warning, and not a block, since WP:3RR can be difficult to understand, it would be more constructive if someone not involved could explain that sourced material should not be removed, it should instead be supplemented with sources of differing views if they can be found. Anynobody 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    Blocked for 12 hours. JoshuaZ 15:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Halibutt reported by User:M.K (Result: Old violation, no reason to block)

    |edit]] | [[Talk:Karolina Proniewska |talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Karolina Proniewska |history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/Karolina Proniewska |protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/Karolina Proniewska |delete]] | links | watch | logs | views). Halibutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 2007-10-09T06:52:08 (among other restored and OR claim it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Pranauskaite as in;)
    • 2nd revert: 2007-10-09T08:44:48 (among other restored and OR claim it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Pranauskaite as in;)
    • 3rd revert: 2007-10-09T09:43:57 (restored it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Praniauskaitė; as in:)
    • 4th revert: 2007-10-09T11:09:13 (it is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Praniauskaitė; as in: reverted link to Samogitian noble family as well.)

    User:Halibutt was blocked for 3RR violation several times already, so contributor is familiar with policy. Currently he conducted edit warring on the same article for several days with completely unacceptable edit summaries (please not he also accused established editor of vandalism as well). And 3RR policy states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. M.K. 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

    P.S. I brought this case again as it originally was not solved and particular contributor seem to start wage reverts again . M.K. 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: User seized editing the article 24 hours ago. Uninvolved editor should simply warn him to stop revert warring. No point to block him to stop the war as war have already ended as the user stopped editing. A stern warning to stay away from an article for, say, another 24 hours and that he may be blocked if he resumes edit warring would have been sufficient IMO. Users with a long record of contributions tend to be more aggravated with blocks and in general, blocks should be avoided if things can be accomplished with other means. --Irpen 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Nishkid, thanks you for unblocking the user. This incident is a fresh illustration that the poor maintenance of the board makes it virtually useless. :( . --Irpen 17:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Sceptre reported by User:Grande13 (Result: Page protected)

    List of Family Guy episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grande13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:30, 11 October 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: Unneeded; user already filed a 3RR report against me (see above)

    User insists on adding doing things the way they perceive is correct, which is under discussion.Grande13 14:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    Three reverts, not four. #1 was an accidental revert to the wrong diff. Also improperly formatted report. Will 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Also, you're not even using reliable sources in your edits, so you don't have any case other to grind an axe. WP:V is non-negotionable. Will 19:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    ok, fine, even ignoring one of those is still a 3RR violation.Grande13 19:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    An editor must not perform more than three reverts. Will 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    copyright database is a reliable source, as well as there have been numerous reverts in the past few days on your part. Many more than 3. Grande13 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Hi, I'm pot. You're rather black for a kettle. Will 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Xenophrenic reported by User:TDC (Result:No violation)

    Winter Soldier Investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    User has a long history of edit warring on this and several other articles, including sanctions on the very article from Arbcom. Contimues to remove the key adjective “allegations” from the introduction and in various other parts of the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    • There are only three reverts here; it is stretching things too far to call the first edit a revert to a version back in February. The user's Arbitration Committee-imposed probation has expired. I will be cautioning him to cool down but he has not violated the three revert rule. Sam Blacketer 20:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The above evaluation of the situation by Sam Blacketer is incorrect. There are only two reverts here; the editor has already moved on to other sections of the article pending discussions on the reverts. The user does not, and never did, have an Arbitration Committee-imposed probation. Sam Blacketer has cautioned an editor that doesn't violate WP:3RR, and isn't continuing to revert. Just setting the record straight before this report is archived. Xenophrenic 22:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Grande13 reported by User:Sceptre (Result: )

    List of Family Guy episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Grande13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:05, 11 October 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: Unneeded - see above.

    Reverting immediately after release of 3RR block on same article. Will 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    the last one isnt a revert. So i do not have more than 3. Grande13 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    ha, and i just noticed the first one isn't me. If you look over the history of the page there are other members, some with usernames, and some with IP that have reverted your edits as well. I dont have access to a computer from 8am to 2pm central time anyways. Nice try though. Grande13 20:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    WP:DUCK applies (and if you are at school 8am to 2am, I see no reason why you can't use a computer at lunchtime). Will 20:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    who said I was at school? I work at for Board of Trade and our computers dont have access to the internet for legal reasons. So 2 of those still arent valid. I like how you keep making assumptions though. Grande13 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    Still, there's plenty of reasons how you can get on the internet. Mobile phones? Internet cafes? Will 20:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    I guess if you really go out of your way it can be done...but then anyone else can do that as well. There is no way it can or should be assumed that was me. Heck, it could have even been you doing that action attempting to get me 3RR. Grande13 20:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not that pathetic. Will 20:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    either im I. Im just saying it could have easily been you or anyone else compared to me. And im saying its even more unlikely it was me as i was stuck at a desk all day. Grande13 20:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    unnamed user from 83.42.211.143reported by User:harrypotter (Result: page protected)

    Precarity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 83.42.211.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:00 11 October


    This IP Address is in Barcelona, as is 88.6.171.168. Bearing in mind that that the user at this address also has only made changes on the precarity and related pages, I regard it as extremely likely that the same fingers are behind the keyboard.

    There has been a certain disagreement about this page going on for a while. Despite refrenced sourcesas to Catholic origins of the term, material has been repeteatedly removed. Those removing the material appear to have little other engagement with wikipedia. Perhaps page protection which prevents un-logged in people from making edits might help here?Harrypotter 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Isarig reported by User:RolandR (Result: )

    Jajah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


    NB This user is on mentorship, with a strict 1RR rule, as a result of a discussion on the former Community Sanctions Noticeboard . He has twice added the same spam link -- on one occasion, accepting that it is spam, and defending his action RolandR 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    This claim is false, as is evidenced by the lack of a "previous version reverted to" link. The second "revert" is nothing of the sort, and does not introduce the same link - it is a complete rewrite of the section, adding new information and basing it on 2 new, mainstream sources, thus addressing whatever issues existed with the original text. RolndR has been extensively edit warring on this article (and blocked for it) , and is now trying to wikilawyer his way into winning a content dispute. Isarig 23:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    If anyone is trying to wikilawyer, it is Isarig, who claims that twice reverting my removal of a spam link is "a complete rewrite". Isarig, who is no longer allowed to edit Middle East articles, appears to be stalking me to other articles in order to provoke edit wars there.RolandR 23:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    False claim here. Those two edits are nowhere near the same. Advise submitter to rethink his submission. Kyaa the Catlord 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    I twice removed a spam link; Isarig twice replaced it. The 3RR rule states quite clearly "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time". RolandR 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    You twice removed a link to TechCrunch, which you claim is a spam link, but I did not replace it twice. Rather, the 2nd time, I rewrote the whole paragraph, focusing it on the controversy rather than the product features, and used 3 mainstream sources, Forbes and PC World, for it. Please stop trying to gain the upper hand in your personal crusade against jajah by resorting to technicalities and wikilawyering of the worst kind. Isarig 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time". RolandR 01:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    86.148.176.95 reported by Canada Jack (Result: 24 hours)

    Carl_Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 86.148.176.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:57, 11 October 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.

    This person has been inserting a line into a biography about Carl Lewis from various IP addresses since about October 7th. Since the insertion (drug allegations) was covered later in the article and the issue, once reported, was not followed up, it was my judgement and this was agreed upon by at least on other member that it did not warrant mention in the intro. I invited this person to discuss the rationale for this change as this had been the consensus in the article to that point. To this time, these requests have been ignored. A check on the person's contributions on the latest IP reveals he or she seems bent on inserting the Lewis drug allegations where warranted - on Ben Johnson's page, on the 1988 Olympic final page, etc.

    Today, seeing that we had reverted to the original intro, he or she re-inserted the same text yet again, and has re-inserted despite my warning on the talk page that I will move to block or otherwise make this cease, and my final warning on my last revert that this was the final warning and I will act to block. Within three minutes, the person made the change and his still not supplied a rationale for their edits nor engaged me or anyone else I am aware of in discussion.Canada Jack 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    I'll endorse this. This same IP has been visiting various sprinting athletes pages adding poorly sourced or unsourced information regarding 'tarnished' images due to drug use. I've warned the user RE:3RR and reverted changes as per WP:BLP.--Yankees76 22:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Paki.tv reported by User:Prester John (Result: no action taken)

    Migratory history of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Paki.tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Paki.tv is having a busy afternoon POV pushing on multiple articles with the intent of disparaging Australians. Notice the first revert. He totally reverses the meaning of the paragraph without adding any citation. After discussion on the talkpage he continues this for the another two reverts. After being warned, (and his subsequent acknowledgement), he reverts for the fourth time with his misrepresentation of a reference. He seems to be arguing that a speech by the Prime Minister complaining about the "chattering classes" is evidence of the claim he is making. Prester John 04:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    This is not a comment on the validity of the edits, nor am I suggesting it is not edit warring, but it seems to me that the first diff provided above by Prester John was not a revert but the initial change. Prester John and paki.tv have then reverted each other 3 times each. I.e., both seem to be sitting on 3RR with neither technically making a 4th revert. Up to the admins - i agree it is edit warring even if not a technical 3RR violation by either - my apologies to all if I am wrong. --Merbabu 04:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    The speech in question demonstrates the ongoing problem that Australia has with its history wars - and I use it to demonstrate the tainted reputation of Australias and its relationship to immigration debates. I have discussed these changes at every step. Prester John on the other hand is reverting to unreferenced assertions and even asking for references for well known and established facts eg Invasion Day and the First Fleet and it is he who is deleting without discussion. Paki.tv —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The user has not yet violated WP:3RR because there are not yet four reverts within 24 hours nor is there any severely disruptive behavior. If edit warring continues, I will either block any 3RR violators or protect the page. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:A Link to the Past reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result:1 week)

    Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A Link to the Past (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 05:01, 12 October 2007 (I'm not sure what this is asking but I hope I did it right)


    User has been blocked repeatedly for doing things like these in the past. He refuses to stop warring and leaves almost incivil comments in his edit summaries. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Clear case and one week block in line with previous escalating blocks. Removing warnings not to edit war on the grounds that the warnings constitute vandalism is not acceptable. Sam Blacketer 08:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:69.143.232.238 reported by User:ForeignerFromTheEast (Result:48 hours)

    Radoviš (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.143.232.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    The anon user has been repeatedly inserting various redirects/red links which do not link to the article in question (Samuil of Bulgaria). Has continued to do the same on other articles. ForeignerFromTheEast 06:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Was warned and continued reverting; insulting and vaguely nationalistic edit summaries; the content of the revert being over whether to change a direct link into a link to a redirected page. I have blocked 69.143.232.238 for 48 hours. Sam Blacketer 10:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:HumayunMirzajr reported by User:Ragib (Result: no action taken)

    Mir Jafar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HumayunMirzajr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:41, 12 October 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.

    • The user has been present since February 2007, so this is not a new user.

    The user keeps removing referenced information from the article Mir Jafar, without any explanation. User has been requested to refrain from doing this. User continues to remove the referenced information despite warnings. Ragib 08:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Geoeg reported by User:dicklyon (Result: )

    Petr Vaníček (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Geoeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


    Oops, I just noticed that my warning was respect to his reverts on the other article, least-squares spectral analysis; the editing history there is somewhat more complex, but still amounts to him asserting WP:OWNership and pushing the POV that one person should get more credit than others, per his COI. He has more than 5 UNDOs of my edits in 24 hours, including this one and this one after the warning, even as I attempted various ways to build on his latest but move toward a more neutral presentation. Dicklyon 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    These tag reverts are the tip of an iceberg. New WP:SPA with severe WP:COI, ignoring all guidelines such as WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV, engaging in WP:PA, etc. I've also reported on WP:ANI#Geoeg, but at least he should be blocked for 3RR; if you have to block me, too, that's fine. Dicklyon 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    Jester7777 reported by Opinoso

    Jester7777, once again, reverted over 3 times. I already denunced him for 4 times revertion in 4 October 2007, but he was not blocked, neither an administrator talked to him. Today, he did the same vandalism in the article Nelly Furtado.

    Opinoso 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    User:Xenophrenic reported by User:TDC (Result: )

    Winter Soldier Investigation‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: Complicated, see below

    Although, this might be a bit difficult to follow, Xenophrenic has managed to remove, in one way or another, every contribution made to the article over the past 48 hours, and in the process reverted in whole or part, the contributions of other editors. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Please see similar request 11 entries above this one. The diffs above do not show a violation of WP:3RR. As advised by Sam Blacketer on this same issue, "It is perfectly good editing practice to ask politely what they meant and to revert if you do not receive a reply," which is what I did. TDC is misrepresenting the situation, edit warring, misrepresenting his edits in Edit Summaries, and now appears to be attempting to get blocks issued instead of collaborating on article improvement. Xenophrenic 20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

    Example

    <!-- copy from _below_ this line -->
===] reported by ] (Result: )===
*] violation on
{{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*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 -->
    Categories: