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 20:04, 29 May 2008 editScarian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers28,509 edits →User:Nickhh reported by User:Julia1987 (Result: ): Res.← Previous edit Revision as of 21:10, 29 May 2008 edit undoJulia1987 (talk | contribs)195 edits →User:Nickhh reported by User:Julia1987 (Result: No vio )Next edit →
Line 655: Line 655:


:{{AN3|nv}} There are enough edits by ] that they might add up to four reverts. However we can't reach that total unless we say that of {{cat|Brainwashing techniques}} is something he should not have done. There is (a) no word 'brainwashing' in the text of this article, (b) no evidence offered that brainwashing occurred, (c) nothing on the Talk page. Since this removal is the kind of thing an admin might have done anyway, I decline to count this removal as one of four reverts. ] (]) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC) :{{AN3|nv}} There are enough edits by ] that they might add up to four reverts. However we can't reach that total unless we say that of {{cat|Brainwashing techniques}} is something he should not have done. There is (a) no word 'brainwashing' in the text of this article, (b) no evidence offered that brainwashing occurred, (c) nothing on the Talk page. Since this removal is the kind of thing an admin might have done anyway, I decline to count this removal as one of four reverts. ] (]) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

::count again. enough reverts without that one. ] (]) 21:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


== Example == == Example ==

Revision as of 21:10, 29 May 2008

Template:Moveprotected

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    Violations

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


    User:Deepak D'Souza reported by User:Eios1234 (Result: Stale. No vio anyway)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Logging in after a few days, I have found multiple reverts made by this vandal over and over again. Unfortunately, he keeps reverting back to a page created by a vandal with multiple errors on it. The correct page is in need of editing and it has been suggested by other users that edit constructively instead of creating an edit war. I suspect he is monitoring the page to make edits as people reverse the reverts done by vandals to de-construct the page. I have discovered that other users have warned him of this as well, User:Deepak D'Souza. This is very concerning.

    It's been 9 hours since a revert; stale. Scarian 20:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    CommentNot just that , it is 6 reverts in a week; not 3 reverts within 24 hours as the rule states :-). --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

    LOL , on closer examination, none of the reverts pointed to are mine, rathere they are reverts of my edits!!! Eios1234 u need to do a better job than this! And why are you showing reverts to versions done by 59.103.26.30 when actually you should be showing reverts done by me to those done by your sockpuppet 68.110.238.158. None of the entries pointed by you are correct according to WP rules. Go get a life!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

    No vio anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Fovean Author reported by User:Bobblehead (Result: 24 hour block )

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • Diff of 3RR warning: He's been an edit warrior for quite awhile and has had reports filed against him (there's one up above) and several warnings.

    This one is a complex reverting, but I'm not going to provide the old version for some of them because the edit summaries on all are the "Undid revision ...." --Bobblehead 17:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    (removed duplicate report, left additional info added by LotLE)--Bobblehead 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    User frequently attempts to introduce extraneous material linking bio subject to Bill Ayers, to give WP:UNDUE weight to a prior campaign guilt-by-association tactic. A long serious of prior edits attempted to WP:SOAPBOX in a different section of the article, on the same topic:

    1. 03:29, 18 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 213171020 by Newross (talk)If it isn't, it should be")
    2. 04:36, 18 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 213185598 by Tvoz (talk)If you want to make changes, get a consensus")
    3. 10:47, 20 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 213644627 by Newross (talk)Absolutely there is consensus on this - you apologists have been trying to undo it")
    4. 11:14, 20 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 213678141 by Brothejr (talk)Perhaps you missed the giant article on this?")
    5. 02:38, 21 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undo disruptive edits / violation of 3 rr's policy")
    6. 16:04, 24 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 214466996 by Johnpseudo (talk)Has nothing to do with campaign and everything to do with bio")
    7. 04:52, 25 May 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 214711970 by Modocc (talk)Let's just leave it as the consensus version while you consider")

    LotLE×talk 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    Note: This user seems likely to be a proxy or sockpuppet of User:Kossack4Truth, who was recently blocked on same article for similar edits. This latter account has also reverted to the same "Fovean Author" version in the last 24 hours:

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Barack_Obama&diff=214839484&oldid=214839051
    Stale report; more admins need to work on 3RR. Scarian 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    How can this be stale if the report is less than 24 hours old? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    There is a discussion of this issue begun on Scarian's talk page -- perhaps it would be good to have it there. Failing that, the discussion could be moved to the talk page here. IronDuke 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    Let me make it clear... any report where the reported user hasn't rv'd in less than 3-4 hours is considered stale. It's a subjective argument but a logical one. Administrators do not block to punish users, rather, they block to prevent damage to the encyclopaedia. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    This seems like a novel interpretation of 3RR, at least in my five years or so experience with it. Does this mean to Scarian, that as long as admins are slow to read the notice board, no one will ever be blocked for violations? I guess that when (not if) Fovian Author next violates on this same edit, I'll post the report again. I see the point of 3RR as providing slightly less gentle encouragement to editors to refrain from edit warring, not simply to prevent the one next reversion. LotLE×talk 21:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for the quick reply, Scarian. Are there any other admins who have such strict standards? I can think of no others. I would also suggest 1) It actually takes quite a while to generate such a report, especially if the reverts are complex and different versions are reverted to and 2) as reverts often take place more than three or four hours apart, it would not be amiss to block even when the report has not been filed within two hours of the last revert. Nor does any of this explain why you do not even warn users that they have violated 3rr -- can you explain it? Thanks again. IronDuke 21:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    I, too, disagree with Scarian's standard of staleness. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    Scarian has sensibly started a discussion here. IronDuke 21:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    My opinion would be to block for 24 hours, by the way, or, failing that, to sternly warn Fovean Author that he must stop edit warring and block is he reverts again within a reasonable timeframe. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked the user for 24 hours. Scarian 16:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Marskell reported by User:Life.temp (Result: No Violation)

    • Previous version reverted to: VERSIONTIME Not sure what I'm supposed to put here. He has successively reduced the amount of material he is reverting, but he persists in reverting something each and every time, never with any explanation on the Talk page.


    Technically 28 hours, but see also...

    • Non-acceptance of proposed truce:
    • Refusal of mediation:
    • recent comments indicating disinterest in working toward consensus:
      • "So keep on talking but I'm done here."
      • Comments on my Talk page after I warned him:

    Life.temp (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

    Life.temp has been waging a campaign of disruption on this article for a month. He enjoys spamming noticeboards. There are not four reverts above. In the last, I removed a sentence that he specifically cite-tagged because I agreed it was unsupported. The other sentence was removed because it exists, in nearly identical form, in the last paragraph of the section. And yes, 28 hours.

    I have not indicated I will avoid consensus—I have indicated I specifically don't want to speak with this editor as doing so is excruciating. In any case, we have consensus on this section from the other editors hanging around—that it should remain in the article despite Life.temp's desire to remove it. Marskell (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, and by last, I mean his first listed—the usual order is flipped. Marskell (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

    No violation This is an very high-minded and intellectual debate. It's hard to see bad faith on either side. Since the reverts span more than 24 hours, there is technically no violation. The debaters should probably post their issues on a wider forum rather than continuing to revert each other. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    I certainly agree that we should discuss on a wider forum rather than reverting. He has repeatedly stated he doesn't want to talk to me, e.g. "I have indicated I specifically don't want to speak with this editor" above. Then he reverts my edits. So what am I supposed to do? Life.temp (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Rpgon2 reported by User:Ncwfl (Result: x2 24 hour blocks )

    Rpgon2 refuses to let anyone make any significant edits and continues to add information from unreliable sources. My attempt to edit the criticism section in any amount is met by a revert. He rarely looks over the full edit often reverting to editions with misspellings. He disguises the reverts as "minor corrections", or deleting entire sections.Ncwfl (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

    Both user's blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Scarian 18:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:216.154.28.192 reported by User:Geneisner (Result: Article protected )

    This is the third time 216.154.28.192 has removed information from this article. User has not discussed, yet keeps taking things out of the article. It seems there is a pattern with this particular user. I've discussed my views on the article's talk page, and encourage others to do so as well. I recommend these topics for discussion, and should the article be partially protected until this issue is satisfactorily resolved by a consensus and/or democratic diplomacy? Geneisner (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

    I have protected the article for 48 hours; please work out content disputes on the article's talk page. Scarian 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Dbachmann reported by User:JHunterJ (Result: 24 hour block )


    • Diff of 3RR warning: Dbachmann is an admin, and has been involved in 3RR disputes in the past, for example: 10:11, 15 November 2007

    Edit war continues into the previous week, through 11:53, 15 May 2008.

    Result - I have blocked Dbachmann for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Scarian 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    With respect, given the purpose of 3RR is getting parties talking and the fact that no substantive replies have been made to dab's concerns on the talkpage - and instead the history shows concerted Wikiproject-based reversion - this appears to be a pretty pointless action. Blocking one of our best encyclopedia-builders for this nonsense. What a waste.--Relata refero (disp.) 20:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm inclined to agree that a block was not the best solution, mainly because it solves nothing. Abtract (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    I find it curious that "concerted Wikiproject-based reversion" is used to describe a single admin's edit war with members of a WikiProject working on a page within that WikiProject. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    Curiously accurate? :) --Relata refero (disp.) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: And Misplaced Pages reaches a new low in the ongoing pointless controversy about disambiguation pages; for the previous low point see the my comment at: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abtract; In this case the first revert by dbachmann was done because User:Abtract had apparently been stalking dab. Abtract wrote in the edit summary: (clean needed to counter repeated non-standard edits) and added the dismabig-cleanup-tag: dab countered: (give me a break. Either explain yourself on talk or leave it be, but don't follow me around with your "disambig-cleanup" template.) ; next up was an edit in which User:JHunterJ removed the link to Energeia and re-added Vitalism, revert by Dab.; although dab did not write anything in the edit summary, he later wrote a longer comment concerning the factual issue on the talk page which remained unanswered: ; User:Sesshomaru has countered in the meantime, but he did not actually put forward anything on the actual question. Dab then restored the link to Energeia ; somewhere around this time Sess added another surreal user warning to Dab's talk page.; Sess, just for your personal information: Aristotle's' view dominated European thought until Galileo Galilei. Removing the link to Energeia is controversial, not insisting on it being kept. Let's see if I can find an example for this: I'd say that removing Energeia from the disambig. on Energy is about as bad as removing Starship Enterprise from Enterprise. There might be a few people who haven't heard of Starship Enterprise because they don't watch TV. There might also be many people who have never heard of Aristotle's' physics because they don't read books - but anyone who knows about it can say that it is relevant. And if you actually had attempted to discuss the issue, you would have learned that. Anyway, in his last revision dab actually compromised and didn't link Energeia, but insisted on the link to Energy (society) being kept, noting that removing this link to was blanking . Anyone who had taken 20 minutes to evaluate the situation completely would have come to the conclusion that dab acted in good faith, reverting what he perceived to be vandalism. Now, do we really have to argue whether removing the link to Energy (society) from a disambig. on Energy is Simple and obvious vandalism? (Right, I just wasted another hour on a noticeboards/RFCs/talk pages; This way I never get to work on the articles.)Zara1709 (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    The addition or removal of "Energeia" is incidental to the problems of (a) attempting to redefine what a term's primary topic is on a disambiguation page and (b) bulking up the intro to a navigational page with a lot of content better suited for article pages. These are the points raised that have gone unanswered. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

    To Abtract and Relata Refero - He may be an admin and an excellent article builder but that does not entitle him to edit war. Scarian 21:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

    And numerical superiority does not entitle parties in a dispute to ignore substantive concerns on the talkpage, among other problems. I merely point out that the block is not aligned with an optimal outcome. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    And numerical minority does not entitle a party in a dispute to ignore substantive conerns on the talkpage either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    There weren't any at the time, so your point, while true, is irrelevant to this situation. ---Relata refero (disp.) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with Scarian's actions. The block should be endorsed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    Dab might "be an admin and an excellent article builder", but that is not what I have said at all. Do you want to argue that removing the link to energy (society) was not simple and obvious vandalism, or do you concede that point that dab was at least once reverting vandalism and that thus this is not a 3rr violation? Zara1709 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

    To Zara - I take exception to you assuming that I have been stalking dab, simply because he said so in a weak moment. I have been watching and editing this page for some time because the subject interests me and in no way have I ever nor will I ever "stalk" dab. I am simply trying to clean disambiguation pages (something I used to enjoy but, for obvious reasons, the gilt has gone off it somewhat). I disagree with his insistence, againt all manual of style advice, on using a dictionary definition, complete with the Greek, instead of the primary topic for the lead sentence - and I have told him that repeatedly. There is nothing more to it than that. However, as I said above, I don't think a block solves anything. Abtract (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

    This is what the word 'apparently' was for; From your edit summary and dab's reply I got the this impression, but I did want to wast another 30 minutes going through all your and dab's edits to be sure on this. That would be the job of the deciding admin.Zara1709 (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    We have to agree that Dhachmann is a good editor, however he does have a tendency to ignore the basic rules, that resulted in this block . Certainly he should be careful to in future not to indulge in the habit of ignoring the consensus, take shortcuts and blame everything that he may not know on WP:FRINGE. WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS are very very basic rules. They apply especially to administratorś who are supposed to ensure the rules are followed. Just as providing summary is an essential sign of adhering to consensus requirement and ability to communicate. Its not that 'sometimes' its needed, its is needed always, as if the issue is bigger it needs a greater consensus on the talk pages or on relevant project pages. Ignoring this conflicts with his situation as administrator subject to recall. I have full faith that he will be able to reform and will not violate the rules again. I also wonder if this is the reason for his talk page to be semi-protected, so that nobody who is not in the circle of friends can say what they want. How do you communicate with him if he does not use the talk pages, summary and his talk page is semiprotected? With best wishes, Wikidās-ॐ 09:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    WD, semiprotection doesn't stop you from talking to him, and his page is s-protected following months of attacks from IPs. And the problem here is that consensus is difficult to achieve with tandem-reverting talkpage-ignoring people. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    Excuse me, could you please clarify the bit about 'nobody who is not in the circle of friends can say what they want'? How exactly does that work? I'm relatively new, but that comment looks pretty strange to me and I'd like you to back it up.
    Meanwhile I'd like to see some discussion somewhere of the issue about disambiguation pages.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, that looks odd coming after Relata refero's comment, which I didn't see for some reason and thought I was replying directly to Wikidas, whose explanation I'd still like to hear as at the moment I'm not happy with that comment.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    I was referring to the conduct not to the circle of friends per se. It is not proper to block ones own talk page according to the rules of conduct. This has nothing to do with this incident bar the fact that this may give a context to it. Again he is a good editor, and he works hard. He need to uphold the admin conduct and rules not be on this board. Wikidās-ॐ 10:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    If you want to see some discussion look at these, where it goes on interminably ... Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation ... Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) ... Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation ... Abtract (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    All parts of the MoS are nothing more than guidelines to aid local talkpage discussion and the formation of consensus there. People tend to forget that. Applying one-size fits all rules to disambiguation pages strike those not involved as a little absurd; to use those rules to edit-war without engaging on the talkpage beyond "them's the rules" is inappropriate, to say the least. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:24.175.111.21 reported by User:Antique_Rose (Result: 24 hours )

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Hereward77 reported by User:Skyring (Result: 96 hours)


    Hereward77's user page contains several 3RR warnings and he is coming off a 48-hour block for edit-warring on the same article. He is aware of an AN/I report raised against him for NPA at 09:34, 27 May 2008.

    Blocked – for a period of 96 hours More edit warring on Alex Jones (radio) after release of previous 3RR block. Personal attacks in edit summaries, as described on ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:83.4.165.112, User:83.4.168.185 reported by User:Buffer_v2 (Result: 2x 24 hour blocks )

    I'll only provide the logs by the most recent changes made by one of his IPs... obvious that its him, has been reverting edits by 3 different IPs today.. but all have the same root IP and all made the same changes User:83.4.168.185

    Please note that this user is User:Panel_2008 (he has been banned before) - please check IP (it will come from the same country for sure). Based on his specific formatting style on the discussion pages - it is fairly obvious to us that this is him (he came back with the IP accounts instead of his real account because he was just banned). See his most recent comment with his IP here, and browse his comments as Panel_2008 on the discussion pages... obvious. He's been involved in months of edit warring, and fails to obey consensus. Even worse, he makes no attempt at reaching compromise. We have been through mediation but he has gone on to ignore that as well - see here.

    And can I also ask that the page be protected again (unfortunately we've gone through protection a number of times)? But first be reverted to the version that's reached consensus? Thanks.--Buffer v2 (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

    What consensus? People didn't agree it's obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.165.112 (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

    Result - I have blocked the IP's for 24 hours each. Scarian 09:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:DeFacto reported by User:Daniel.Cardenas (Result: 24 hour block )

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 14:07, 26 May 2008 - User responded to this warning in the discussion page.

    DeFactor has been involved in an edit war with several editors over the past several days.

    Result - 24 hour block. Scarian 12:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Wtcsurvivor and User:Jazz2006 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Wtcsurvivor indef as a sock)

    This complicated. Each of them has had at least 4 reverts in a 24 hour period ending about 8 hours ago, according to the edit summaries. (This count only includes one revert in each sequence of consecutive edits.)

    All times PDT (UTC -7) to avoid transcription problems.


    User:Ulster Vanguard reported by User:BigDunc (Result: 24 hour block )


    Editor is repeatedly adding a nationality of British, which is redundant at best and provocative at worst. BigDunc 20:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

    Result - I have blocked Ulster for 24 hours. Scarian 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


    User:65.78.13.238 and User:DougWeller reported by User:Majeston (Result:reporter blocked)


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

    Both editors user;65.78.13.238 and user:DougWeller have been edit warring the article for over a month now. Neither editor has been a contributor to the article and both have appeared on the scene in the past month as a tag-team of disruption and collusion. Respectfully request a block of both users and protection for the article. Thank You.

    • Although this report is malformed, it is easy to see from the article history that both 65.78.13.238 and Majeston have been edit warring on this article for far too long. Majeston has actually violated 3RR, while the IP has not. Though I'm not usually a fan of blocking only one participant in these cases, I'm going to do so this time and block Majeston, who is clearly aware of the concept of edit warring, for 24 hours while warning the IP that 3RR is not an entitlement. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you. So ironic to see the user who today actually violated 3RR (Majeston) trying to report others who haven't. I decided not to report him to this noticeboard because it didn't appear he had received a 3RR warning. It appears that my posting of the warning on his talk page educated him to the presence of this noticeboard, which he tried to use as a weapon against other editors. I did also notify 65.78.13.238 of 3RR. Wazronk (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    He left a 3RR warning on my talk page. My last 2 edits were yesterday (the 27th) and the 19th. Now that is some tough edit war, eh? He's also asked for me to be blocked entirely from editing. And tried to put a semiprotect tag on himself. His response about using the Talk page for resolution was "yeah, sure thing....like i've got nothing better to do......i'll jump right on that" --Doug Weller (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Sedonafengshui aka User:216.19.43.241 reported by User:Cbramble (Result: Protected)

    Three-revert rule violation on Feng shui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Time reported: 22:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) My apologies if I have not completed this correctly; first time having to report this.

    user:Sedonafengshui who is also user:216.19.43.241 and possibly user:67.203.138.58 and myself user:cbramble have been edit warring the article for many days. I user:cbramble am a contributor on WikiProject China and currently reworking feng shui and Luopan. user:sedonafengshui is not a contributor, has a history of conflict of interest, adding irrelevant material, unsourced material, & poorly sourced references, plus what seems to be personal vision of subject (adds more sections that conflict with existing sections).

    user:sedonafengshui just botted me for vandalism.

    Article already protected by User:Gonzo fan2007. EdJohnston (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Sixie reported by User:Tuxide (Result: 24 hour block )


    I didn't use the diffs supplied as they would've rendered the report stale, instead, the user last reverted at 8 am UTC, which is close enough for me. I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Scarian 11:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Nosferamus and User:87.6.8.232 reported by User:195.176.178.209 (Result: 24 hour block and page protected )

    87.6.8.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), the author of a fifth revert at 12:43, 27 May 2008 is probably a sockpuppet of Nosferamus, who is in turn probably Lupis himself. The list of his sockpuppets on it.wiki, where he was banned for copyvio, original research and vandalism, is here. It includes one (Vostradamus) looking suspiciously similar to Nosferamus. Furthermore, here is a check-user that shows that the address family that Lupis uses on it.wiki is the same as 87.6.8.232.

    * 213.140.22.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) vandalised many times, instead of multiple warnings and reverts also made by administrator iridescent, the Marco Lupis voice. This Ip is well-known in Italian Wiki for continuous vandalisms (see: http://it.wikipedia.org/Discussioni_utente:213.140.22.65). Same as User:195.176.178.209 --Nosferamus (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    please note the 213.240.22.65 IP is shared as it belongs to the Fastweb ISP, which places its customers behind NAT. The other IP does not even have a discussion page on it.wiki. 195.176.178.209 (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    *Please also consider to erase references to IP because public association of IP number and real name it is considered a violation by Italian Privacy laws.--Nosferamus (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    * IP 195.176.178.209 is obvious the same as 213.140.22.65. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marco_Lupis&action=history : "contributions" are the same. --Nosferamus (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    Result - I have prot'd the article for 24 hours and blocked Nosferamus for 24, too. Scarian 11:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Piotrus (Result: 1 week block and 1 warning )

    • Previous version reverted to: Varies, but the first three restore the same piece of information (recently removed by other editors) and the last two remove a piece of information added by another editor.


    Despite two very recent (and several day long) blocks for 3RR violations (on an article that is now protected), this user seems to have just moved to revert war on another article. In addition, he is highly uncivil in his edit summaries and on talk, making any compromise difficult (ex. ).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 10:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    I have blocked Boodlesthecat for 1 week and warned another user who is dangerously close to violating 3RR. Scarian 11:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


    User:Domer48 reported by User:Wotapalaver (Result: Suggested voluntary article bans )

    • Previous version reverted to:

    The version reverted to varies. The aim is consistent in all cases; to remove any overview or summary of the famine from the article.

    The Article is the subject of an ARBCOM ruling, so although the 4 edits are not within 24 hours I feel it's worth reporting the reverting behaviour. Also, the talk page contributions suggest that further reversions/deletions are likely.


    • 1st revert: - removing the timeline of the famine from the article
    • 2nd revert: - removing the timeline of the famine from the article again
    • 3rd revert: - deleting the lead section, which was a variant of the bullet-point-formatted timeline turned into a lead section.
    • 4th revert: - deleting the lead section again.
    Working on a settlement now. Scarian 13:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, both users were given a final edit warring warning by User:Daniel. Instead of blocking, I have asked them both if they would take a voluntary break from editing The Great Hunger. Let's see if this works. Scarian 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    Okay, I will not be accepting your suggestion of a voluntary break from editing The Great Hunger. Based on a puerile 3RR report from a disruptive editor, who themselves conceded the fact that I did not breach our rules on 3RR here on my talk page. Now even a cursory glance at the talk page both here and here clearly shows I have studiously used the Talk Page in an attempt to address the issues concerned. Now your lack of attention resulted in the erroneous suggestion that I “refused to heed” a warning, when a look at the talk page clearly shows this not to be the case. So based on the fact that I did not refuse to heed a warning, and that a baseless 3RR report was filed, your suggestion is premature and uncalled for.--Domer48 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


    User:7thkid reported by FelisLeo (Result: 24 hour block )

    Caroline's Spine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 7thkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    User keeps reverting to a blank page. After last vandalism warning he added an edit summary stating its an incorrect version of te facts. I re-reverted including the message to provide proof before blanking.

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


    1. 215554078 18:40, 28 May 2008 (edit summary: "")
    2. 215555518 18:48, 28 May 2008 (edit summary: "")
    3. 215555574 18:48, 28 May 2008 (edit summary: "")
    4. 215556753 18:53, 28 May 2008 (edit summary: "This is an incorrect version of the facts.")

    —FelisLeo 19:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    Result - I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Scarian 19:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:207.189.99.134 reported by User:Justinm1978 (Result: 24 hour block for IP and reporter)

    • Previous version reverted to:



    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    IP blocked by Ryan for 24 hours. Scarian 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    and reporter blocked for 24 hours given he warned the user for 3RR and then proceeded to revert for a fourth time himself. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:67.87.7.164 reported by User:MrPrada (Result: 24 hour block )

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: (06:55, 29 May 2008), inserts defamatory material reported at ANI and reverted by me, warned by Cluebot
    • 2nd revert: (07:00, 29 May 2008), deleted large portions of text, I gave up reverting at this point, final vandalism warning from User:Anonymous101 (IP had vandalized other articles earlier, I did not issue any template warnings, I went directly to the talk page)
    • 3rd revert: (07:26, 29 May 2008), deletes large portions of text & image, reverted & warning by Cluebot
    • 4th revert: (08:02, 29 May 2008), deletes large portions of text & image, reverted by User:Aleenf1
    • 5th revert: (08:06, 29 May 2008), deletes large portions of text & image, reverted by User:Aleenf1
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • 1st warning: (07:22, 29 May 2008)
    • 2nd warning: (07:29, 29 May 2008)
    I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. Scarian 08:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:121.45.48.22 reported by User:AI009 (Result: warned)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert: 14:44, 28 May 2008 repositions images for no reason
    • 2nd revert: 14:48, 28 May 2008 reverts
    • 3rd revert: 14:35, 29 May 2008 reverts again..
    • 4th revert: 14:38, 29 May 2008 ..and again
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    1st warning
    2nd warning
    3rd warning

    User:Starimmanuel reported by User:Canadian Monkey (Result: Already blocked)



    User is similarly edit warring over this content at 2006 Lebanon War

    Already blocked indef by Tiptoety. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Nickhh reported by User:Julia1987 (Result: No vio )

    5th is the revert of this edit this is the revert:

    4th : partial revert of he words without pay is here :

    3rd: full revert:


    2nd: partial revert of this: , is here: ,


    1st: partial revert of is here:

    there are more, just look:

    --Julia1987 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Rudget (Help?) 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    noncando these are partial reverts. --Julia1987 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    No violation There are enough edits by User:Nickh that they might add up to four reverts. However we can't reach that total unless we say that his revert of Category:Brainwashing techniques is something he should not have done. There is (a) no word 'brainwashing' in the text of this article, (b) no evidence offered that brainwashing occurred, (c) nothing on the Talk page. Since this removal is the kind of thing an admin might have done anyway, I decline to count this removal as one of four reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    count again. enough reverts without that one. Julia1987 (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Categories: